I have to be honest. My face just dropped when my friend Frank recently recommended a book to me called "The Price of a Bargain." As a self-proclaimed and sometimes-proud value shopper, I have often ignored the potential conflict of buying bargain good with my principles of environmentalism and sustainability. I give myself a convenient out - "I was raised in America! And a few items here and there, even if they are absurdly cheap - 4 dollar sheet set anyone? - can't hurt that much right? Plus, if I scored a deal, it was through my own hard work and industriousness, and that deserves to be rewarded at least!
Well, perhaps its time for me to really, seriously reconsider. Apparently, author Gordon Laird exposes the true costs - socially, environmentally, and otherwise - to all of our bargain shopping. On reflection, how is it possible that that sheet set ends up being so cheap anyway? Can it possibly be the product of any sort of reasonable production system, where farmers are paid decent prices for investing in their land, where manufacturers and employees are paid living wages, and where retailers can operate in communities and not from big huge impersonal boxes?
Since I've not yet read the book, I can't say I've decided one way or another, but I can say that Mr. Laird's book is now on my reading list. If you want to read a good review of the book, you should view this post written by my "friend" Frank, who is apparently trying to challenge my entire life. So, I don't promise that you won't find me in Target or Bed Bath and Beyond anymore (changing a lifetime of consumer indoctrination takes a lot of effort) but I do promise that when you do find me there, I will more likely have a look of intense contemplation and conflict on my face in that clearance aisle.
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Re-cycle your old electronics...
and maybe even get some money for them! Wanted to share a website I ran across recently called YouRenew that lets you essentially "sell" your old electronics (phones, mp3 players, video game systems, etc.) to this company which will then re-sell the items on websites like e-Bay so that they don't stop getting used and get tossed into landfills.
Given how disposable our society has become, this seems like a great idea to minimize the electronic waste going straight into our landfills. Of course, as William McDonough has noted, recycling only prolongs the inevitable. Eventually, these items are still going to be disposed of somewhere. Further, if the items are less resource-efficient (i.e. use more energy) then perhaps its not as good an idea to keep them in use. And finally, the real solution isn't to recycle, but to change our disposable economy into something that makes more sense (has anyone noticed that there are virtually no repair shops in existence anymore?)
Yet, as someone who has like four old cell phones in my desk drawer, I find YouRenew's idea pretty engaging. At the very least, older products that are still completely usable can get a new lease on life for a while with someone else, and that's always better than having something just rot away in a landfill OR your desk drawer.
Given how disposable our society has become, this seems like a great idea to minimize the electronic waste going straight into our landfills. Of course, as William McDonough has noted, recycling only prolongs the inevitable. Eventually, these items are still going to be disposed of somewhere. Further, if the items are less resource-efficient (i.e. use more energy) then perhaps its not as good an idea to keep them in use. And finally, the real solution isn't to recycle, but to change our disposable economy into something that makes more sense (has anyone noticed that there are virtually no repair shops in existence anymore?)
Yet, as someone who has like four old cell phones in my desk drawer, I find YouRenew's idea pretty engaging. At the very least, older products that are still completely usable can get a new lease on life for a while with someone else, and that's always better than having something just rot away in a landfill OR your desk drawer.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Challenging the Status Quo
" “I figured trailer parks were the one place left where hanging your laundry was actually still allowed,” she said, standing in front of her tidy yellow mobile home on an impeccably manicured lawn.
But she was wrong. Like the majority of the 60 million people who now live in the country’s roughly 300,000 private communities, Ms. Saylor was forbidden to dry her laundry outside because many people viewed it as an eyesore, not unlike storing junk cars in driveways, and a marker of poverty that lowers property values. "
This is from a recent article in the New York Times about the growing debate about line-drying clothes. Yes, you read that correctly, there is a debate in the nation about naturally drying clothes outside ones house. Apparently there is some sort of cost-benefit analysis that is taking place, comparing the negative effects of having laundry outside a house on property values with the positive environmental benefits of not consuming electricity to dry clothes.
From my standpoint, this is a pretty simple call - if we can dry clothes through real, original solar power, why not? Yet, for many people in this country, line-drying clothes is an overt display of poverty. This, to me, highlights the necessity for us in this country to really re-evaluate our priorities and our perspectives. Why?
Well, the debate isn't even about the quality of drying provided by the two methods (which is debatable... I personally LOVE the feeling of fluffy dryer-dried towels, but others swear by the fresh-scent of line-drying). This would be a debate I could get into. But this is not the debate. The debate has devolved into "eyesore of not." Are we really looking at this issue of wasted resources as a trade off for our own vanity? Do line-dried clothes in a yard actually affect the quality of living in a neighborhood? Would a better solution to this issue not be changing our perspective so that we no longer equated things like laundry-free yards and green grass lawns (another huge resource waste in arid areas like LA, Las Vegas, and Phoenix) with wealth and status?
Let's get down to the heart of matters and stop skirting the issue. We attach way to much importance to things that are outdated and actually unimportant. I'm pretty sure that you can still enjoy watch "Real Housewives of Atlanta" with your neighbor's laundry hanging in the yard next door, flitting in the wind next to your window. I mean, we actively choose to watch other people's dirty laundry on TV all the time, what's wrong with some clean laundry next door?
But she was wrong. Like the majority of the 60 million people who now live in the country’s roughly 300,000 private communities, Ms. Saylor was forbidden to dry her laundry outside because many people viewed it as an eyesore, not unlike storing junk cars in driveways, and a marker of poverty that lowers property values. "
This is from a recent article in the New York Times about the growing debate about line-drying clothes. Yes, you read that correctly, there is a debate in the nation about naturally drying clothes outside ones house. Apparently there is some sort of cost-benefit analysis that is taking place, comparing the negative effects of having laundry outside a house on property values with the positive environmental benefits of not consuming electricity to dry clothes.
From my standpoint, this is a pretty simple call - if we can dry clothes through real, original solar power, why not? Yet, for many people in this country, line-drying clothes is an overt display of poverty. This, to me, highlights the necessity for us in this country to really re-evaluate our priorities and our perspectives. Why?
Well, the debate isn't even about the quality of drying provided by the two methods (which is debatable... I personally LOVE the feeling of fluffy dryer-dried towels, but others swear by the fresh-scent of line-drying). This would be a debate I could get into. But this is not the debate. The debate has devolved into "eyesore of not." Are we really looking at this issue of wasted resources as a trade off for our own vanity? Do line-dried clothes in a yard actually affect the quality of living in a neighborhood? Would a better solution to this issue not be changing our perspective so that we no longer equated things like laundry-free yards and green grass lawns (another huge resource waste in arid areas like LA, Las Vegas, and Phoenix) with wealth and status?
Let's get down to the heart of matters and stop skirting the issue. We attach way to much importance to things that are outdated and actually unimportant. I'm pretty sure that you can still enjoy watch "Real Housewives of Atlanta" with your neighbor's laundry hanging in the yard next door, flitting in the wind next to your window. I mean, we actively choose to watch other people's dirty laundry on TV all the time, what's wrong with some clean laundry next door?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Walmart's Sustainability Index
Just got a blog-feed from Joel Makower at Greenbuzz.com that discusses Walmart's newest green initiative, the "Sutainability Index." You can find the full post here: The Hype and the Reality(Makower). Essentially, Walmart is setting the stage for measuring suppliers against a number of sustainability metrics. As Makower points out, it's the first step in what could become a very ambitious initiative, but right now it is still in its early stages. We likely won't see very much positive consumer-facing effects from this right now, and it may be tempting to call it greenwashing, but I agree with Makower that it's really too early to judge Walmart and that this initiative is shaping up to be much more than just greenwashing.
Walmart and other large multi-nationals get a lot of crap for they way they conduct business and for their past practices. Much of this is not un-deserved. Companies have for too long worked by pillaging the natural world for short term profits. However, the solutions from the radical end of the spectrum is to just get rid of these companies. I think this is also short-sighted and unrealistic. Our economic systems are set up in a way to encourage the growth of companies such as these, and even if Walmart or McDonalds were to disappear tomorrow, other companies would spring into their place and do the same things they do.
Instead, I think we have to support, encourage, cajole, and pressure these companies to make the types of changes that Walmart has been making. While I would love to see radical reform and changes to the way we consume (and admittedly, this would completely destroy Walmart and its entire business) I don't think this will happen anytime soon. Perhaps the answer then, is to push Walmart into changing their business themselves, morphing into something that little resembles what they are now, and can through their reach and their influence, actually change how consumers thing. Imagine, if Walmart could convince 50% of their customers that using plastic bags are bad..... imagine the ramifications of that.
Thus, I think this initiative should be viewed positively, although with a healthy dose of skepticism. That skepticism shouldn't lead to outright dismissal of the Sustainability Index however - it should lead to monitoring and accountability. Walmart has shown a very commendable penchant to engage some of the leading environmentalists and environmental policy makers around in order to help drive their sustainability initiatives. We should acknowledge this and utilize this openness to push the company further forward.
One final note - Makower highlights what might be the most interesting and important aspect of this program at the end of his post too. Walmart is considering pushing for open-source databases to manage and share the information they collect, allowing both consumers and other companies to analyze the companies that are making their products. Greater access to information can only be a good thing. Walmart's openness to not owning this whole process and set of metrics is also promising. Let's see how this develops.
Walmart, like the US, is a huge ship.. it will take a long time to turn them, but it is possible. This is a step in the right direction, and while I hate to hold up Walmart pom-poms, I'm going to be a cheerleader here and say "good for you Walmart."
Walmart and other large multi-nationals get a lot of crap for they way they conduct business and for their past practices. Much of this is not un-deserved. Companies have for too long worked by pillaging the natural world for short term profits. However, the solutions from the radical end of the spectrum is to just get rid of these companies. I think this is also short-sighted and unrealistic. Our economic systems are set up in a way to encourage the growth of companies such as these, and even if Walmart or McDonalds were to disappear tomorrow, other companies would spring into their place and do the same things they do.
Instead, I think we have to support, encourage, cajole, and pressure these companies to make the types of changes that Walmart has been making. While I would love to see radical reform and changes to the way we consume (and admittedly, this would completely destroy Walmart and its entire business) I don't think this will happen anytime soon. Perhaps the answer then, is to push Walmart into changing their business themselves, morphing into something that little resembles what they are now, and can through their reach and their influence, actually change how consumers thing. Imagine, if Walmart could convince 50% of their customers that using plastic bags are bad..... imagine the ramifications of that.
Thus, I think this initiative should be viewed positively, although with a healthy dose of skepticism. That skepticism shouldn't lead to outright dismissal of the Sustainability Index however - it should lead to monitoring and accountability. Walmart has shown a very commendable penchant to engage some of the leading environmentalists and environmental policy makers around in order to help drive their sustainability initiatives. We should acknowledge this and utilize this openness to push the company further forward.
One final note - Makower highlights what might be the most interesting and important aspect of this program at the end of his post too. Walmart is considering pushing for open-source databases to manage and share the information they collect, allowing both consumers and other companies to analyze the companies that are making their products. Greater access to information can only be a good thing. Walmart's openness to not owning this whole process and set of metrics is also promising. Let's see how this develops.
Walmart, like the US, is a huge ship.. it will take a long time to turn them, but it is possible. This is a step in the right direction, and while I hate to hold up Walmart pom-poms, I'm going to be a cheerleader here and say "good for you Walmart."
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Car-Free Challenge Days 1-5: Cut my car mileage in half!
In the first 5 days of the car-free challenge, I'm happy with the results: cut my car mileage in half, from 14-16 miles in a 'normal' week to 8 miles total (4 miles solo, 4 miles carpooling).
As I started thinking after the first day, it's not necessary all or nothing, it's about being more thoughtful about walking, biking or taking transit when I can - carpooling more and bunching driving trips together when I can't. There will be some days when work seems a bit crazy and Kaiya wakes up late where I will make the choice to not stroll her the 1 mile to daycare so I can make it to work when I want/need to. And there will be plenty of days when the whole family is up early enough to take the leisurely 20 min stroll each way to/from daycare.
Alas, today is the big challenge that I have not figured out how to tackle. We're having brunch at the SF Ferry Plaza: CUESA is putting on a Spring Breakfast with delicious souding food and a chance to talk to farmers who grow sustainable food. This is about 70 miles round trip. In theory getting to the Ferry Plaza is public transit friendly (walk 5 blocks to Caltrain, Caltrain to SF, MUNI to Embarcadero). The challenges are the combination of time (the trip each way would take ~ 1 hr 45 min taking public tranist vs. 45 min driving), timing (the trains to/from SF on the weekends only run every hour) and making the trip work for my daughter (the ride there would probably be fine but the ride back could be a nightmare if she is melting down). If it was just me and my daughter, I'd probably risk taking public transit on principle (and risk a rough trip), but I don't feel super comfortable subjecting my wife to the potential ordeal.
We're going with 2 other friends so we can all carpool together (and they would drive anyway so overall we're not adding mileage that would be driven anyways). But I still wish I could figure out a better way to balance all of this and cut this car trip out. We'll see...
http://transformca.org/blog/days-1-5-cut-my-car-mileage-half
As I started thinking after the first day, it's not necessary all or nothing, it's about being more thoughtful about walking, biking or taking transit when I can - carpooling more and bunching driving trips together when I can't. There will be some days when work seems a bit crazy and Kaiya wakes up late where I will make the choice to not stroll her the 1 mile to daycare so I can make it to work when I want/need to. And there will be plenty of days when the whole family is up early enough to take the leisurely 20 min stroll each way to/from daycare.
Alas, today is the big challenge that I have not figured out how to tackle. We're having brunch at the SF Ferry Plaza: CUESA is putting on a Spring Breakfast with delicious souding food and a chance to talk to farmers who grow sustainable food. This is about 70 miles round trip. In theory getting to the Ferry Plaza is public transit friendly (walk 5 blocks to Caltrain, Caltrain to SF, MUNI to Embarcadero). The challenges are the combination of time (the trip each way would take ~ 1 hr 45 min taking public tranist vs. 45 min driving), timing (the trains to/from SF on the weekends only run every hour) and making the trip work for my daughter (the ride there would probably be fine but the ride back could be a nightmare if she is melting down). If it was just me and my daughter, I'd probably risk taking public transit on principle (and risk a rough trip), but I don't feel super comfortable subjecting my wife to the potential ordeal.
We're going with 2 other friends so we can all carpool together (and they would drive anyway so overall we're not adding mileage that would be driven anyways). But I still wish I could figure out a better way to balance all of this and cut this car trip out. We'll see...
http://transformca.org/blog/days-1-5-cut-my-car-mileage-half
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Car-Free Challenge Day 1: 0 miles!
I generally don't drive that much as it is. I live in a very walkable neighborhood (downtown Mountain View) and take the train to work. I try to take the train on the weekends when public transit access is decent (for example, to the Sunnyvale farmer's market). And before my bike was stolen a couple weeks ago, I would try to (but admittedly not always) bike around town for errands such as grocery shopping, going to my community garden, etc.
The one car trip that I have taken every day for the last year is dropping off my daughter at daycare every morning. Daycare is only 1 mile from my house. Close enough to walk, but far enough to consider other options. I have looked at the bus schedule but it doesn't quite work out with the train schedule I need to take to work. And I thought about biking her to daycare, but I never got off my butt and invested in a baby seat or a trailer (and now there's even more inertia since my bike was stolen). So I had been resigned to driving because a) I wanted to be time-efficient and I already try to cram a lot into my work day to maximize the time I can spend at home, and b) it's unpredictable enough to get my daughter to wake up in time for me to drive her to daycare and catch the train without adding more time needed to walk.
But with the car-free challenge, my perspective is changing. I had been leaving the house at 8am to drive my daughter to daycare - this gave me plenty of time for drop-off, including a little slack if I was running late and time to check email or do stuff around the house after dropping her off and before going to work. The car-free challenge has prompted me to think about alternatives, and I realized I have a couple options...
1. Walking my daughter to daycare is actually not that slow. I was worried that I would have to leave 30 min earlier at 7:30am to make this work. To the contrary, I found out today that I can leave at 7:45am and have enough time to walk her to school and back and still make the train (I just forego the 10 min I had at home for other stuff). 15 minutes earlier than I had been leaving the house before is not that bad at all - especially when I consider that the walk is nice and another opportunity for me to get outdoors, and it reduces my regular daily driving miles to 0!
2. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't have to drive her everyday or walk her everyday. There will be days when my daughter wakes up late, and I will need to drive her to catch my regular train (and there may be days my schedule is a bit more flexible where her getting up late is okay and I can catch the train that is 15 minutes later). And there may be days when it's too rainy or I'm too tired to walk or it's too cold for Kaiya, and that's okay if I drive her to daycare. If I am conscious of this choice that I have every day, I'm guessing that I will choose to walk at least half the time, and that can cut down on many hundreds of miles that I drive every year.
If I don't get anything else out of this car-free challenge, this shift in my perspective on Day 1 has been well worth it.
http://transformca.org/blog/day-1-0-miles-0
The one car trip that I have taken every day for the last year is dropping off my daughter at daycare every morning. Daycare is only 1 mile from my house. Close enough to walk, but far enough to consider other options. I have looked at the bus schedule but it doesn't quite work out with the train schedule I need to take to work. And I thought about biking her to daycare, but I never got off my butt and invested in a baby seat or a trailer (and now there's even more inertia since my bike was stolen). So I had been resigned to driving because a) I wanted to be time-efficient and I already try to cram a lot into my work day to maximize the time I can spend at home, and b) it's unpredictable enough to get my daughter to wake up in time for me to drive her to daycare and catch the train without adding more time needed to walk.
But with the car-free challenge, my perspective is changing. I had been leaving the house at 8am to drive my daughter to daycare - this gave me plenty of time for drop-off, including a little slack if I was running late and time to check email or do stuff around the house after dropping her off and before going to work. The car-free challenge has prompted me to think about alternatives, and I realized I have a couple options...
1. Walking my daughter to daycare is actually not that slow. I was worried that I would have to leave 30 min earlier at 7:30am to make this work. To the contrary, I found out today that I can leave at 7:45am and have enough time to walk her to school and back and still make the train (I just forego the 10 min I had at home for other stuff). 15 minutes earlier than I had been leaving the house before is not that bad at all - especially when I consider that the walk is nice and another opportunity for me to get outdoors, and it reduces my regular daily driving miles to 0!
2. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't have to drive her everyday or walk her everyday. There will be days when my daughter wakes up late, and I will need to drive her to catch my regular train (and there may be days my schedule is a bit more flexible where her getting up late is okay and I can catch the train that is 15 minutes later). And there may be days when it's too rainy or I'm too tired to walk or it's too cold for Kaiya, and that's okay if I drive her to daycare. If I am conscious of this choice that I have every day, I'm guessing that I will choose to walk at least half the time, and that can cut down on many hundreds of miles that I drive every year.
If I don't get anything else out of this car-free challenge, this shift in my perspective on Day 1 has been well worth it.
http://transformca.org/blog/day-1-0-miles-0
Friday, May 29, 2009
Take the Car Free Challenge!
From the Car Free Challenge Website:
During the month of June the average Bay Area resident will drive 540 miles and the average American driver more than 1,000 miles. Think you can do better?
Join a huge community of people in setting and reaching a personal low mileage goal in the month of June - plus win great prizes and share your stories of taking transit, walking, and bicycling. Whether driving less is stretch for you or already a way of life, we want you to take the Challenge!
Together we will send a powerful message to our leaders that a critical mass of people want to drive less and live more.
http://transformca.org/live/car-free-challenge
During the month of June the average Bay Area resident will drive 540 miles and the average American driver more than 1,000 miles. Think you can do better?
Join a huge community of people in setting and reaching a personal low mileage goal in the month of June - plus win great prizes and share your stories of taking transit, walking, and bicycling. Whether driving less is stretch for you or already a way of life, we want you to take the Challenge!
Together we will send a powerful message to our leaders that a critical mass of people want to drive less and live more.
http://transformca.org/live/car-free-challenge
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Hybrids everywhere
IHT recently had an article about Honda's big push into the hybrid market with their Prius-beating new Insight model. As the article mentions, the Insight is quite a bit cheaper than the Prius and hopes to steal market share from the Prius through this advantage. Lower cost does come at a price though, as the environmental performance isn't as good as Prius (which in turn, isn't as good as say, all electric vehicles.) Honda however is counting on the idea that people now WANT to be identified with a Hybrid car, and are proud to drive them around.
"Instead of the more complicated hybrid system used in the Prius, the Insight’s main source of power is a lightweight gasoline engine that is assisted by smaller batteries. That greatly reduces manufacturing costs but gives the Insight a highway fuel efficiency of 5.5 liters per 100 kilometers, or 43 miles per gallon — about 4 percent worse than that of the Prius. The Insight also shares parts with other Honda models, which helps the carmaker keep costs to a minimum." (full article here)
Inherent in this business strategy is the idea that people actually don't care as much about the real environmental benefits of their hybrid cars, but instead care more about showing that they care. As paradoxical as that statement is. Indeed, this is probably what's behind some of the more ridiculous "green machines" that I've seen recently, including the Hybrid Cadillac Escalade, an uber-luxury SUV that gets something like a whopping 21mpg. I mean, who are we kidding here?
I'm just as happy as the next tree-hugger to see more cars being produced that will finally drive our fuel economy figures up - but aren't we running a really dangerous line between going in the right direction and intentionally misleading ourselves? Sure, you can feel good that you're driving a HYBRID SUV, but you're still polluting the environment 2-3x as much with every mile you drive as some guy driving a Smart or a Prius.
"Instead of the more complicated hybrid system used in the Prius, the Insight’s main source of power is a lightweight gasoline engine that is assisted by smaller batteries. That greatly reduces manufacturing costs but gives the Insight a highway fuel efficiency of 5.5 liters per 100 kilometers, or 43 miles per gallon — about 4 percent worse than that of the Prius. The Insight also shares parts with other Honda models, which helps the carmaker keep costs to a minimum." (full article here)
Inherent in this business strategy is the idea that people actually don't care as much about the real environmental benefits of their hybrid cars, but instead care more about showing that they care. As paradoxical as that statement is. Indeed, this is probably what's behind some of the more ridiculous "green machines" that I've seen recently, including the Hybrid Cadillac Escalade, an uber-luxury SUV that gets something like a whopping 21mpg. I mean, who are we kidding here?
I'm just as happy as the next tree-hugger to see more cars being produced that will finally drive our fuel economy figures up - but aren't we running a really dangerous line between going in the right direction and intentionally misleading ourselves? Sure, you can feel good that you're driving a HYBRID SUV, but you're still polluting the environment 2-3x as much with every mile you drive as some guy driving a Smart or a Prius.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
What would you do?
I went to Trader Joe's this morning wanting to buy 1 lb. of ground beef to make hamburger's and faced a dilemma. These were my choices:
1. All natural Black Angus ground beef from the US = $5.99 / lb
2. All natural ground beef from Australia = $4.99 / lb
3. Ground beef (not organic or natural) from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico = $3.29 / lb.
There is also option #4 not at Trader Joe's itself - I know that I can buy grass-fed, organic from a rancher in the SF Bay Area that comes to my local farmer's market for $6.99 / lb (and I go to the farmer's market every Sunday so there is no difference in convenience).
Based on all that I have read about sustainable food systems (and the potential positive impact this can have on the environment vs. the alternative), my preference is to buy sustainable, local, grass-fed, organic ground beef. On top of that, I prefer to buy from locally owned "businesses" (i.e. the local bookstore, farmer, etc.) than a large chain where the money doesn't circulate locally and potentially just lines the pockets of the business owners (or shareholders) who are likely very wealthy. I personally don't mind paying more for this, but I also have to consider my wife's view - she is not opposed to buying sustainable, local, grass-fed, organic but cares A LOT less about that and more about value/price. Especially in a time when we are thinking more about being cost conscious, the value/price factor seems even more important. And the dynamic between my wife around money should not be taken lightly.
So what do I do? I know this choice is very personal to people, but here is my thinking...
- The cheapest option offers a savings of $4 over the most expensive option (farmer's market). If the decision were left to my wife, this would probably be her choice. This is also the least environmentally friendly option (not local, grass-fed or organic), and also the most scary - why does this beef come from the US, Mexico, Canada, New Zealand and Australia? Sorry, babe, but I'm just not down with this beef.
- For less than $2 more than the cheapest option (and $2 less than the farmer's market option), I can buy beef that is natural (marginally better than organic) but very not local (I can't believe we import it from Australia and it's cheaper than the stuff grown here) or grass-fed. My wife probably wouldn't be opposed to this as a compromise.
- For almost $3 more than the cheapest option, I only save $1 over the farmer's market and buy beef that is natural and at least more local than the beef from Australia, but still not necessarily (and probably not) truly local nor grass-fed. I don't think either of us would be happy with this option.
- I could pay a premium (more than twice as much as the cheapest option) to buy beef that meets all of my values: local, organic, grass-fed and from a "local business" vs. national chain. Clearly my choice if I were to make this on my own, but the hardest for my wife to swallow.
I discussed all of this with my wife (who wonders why I make such a fuss over something as simple as ground beef) and she says she is comfortable with whatever I want to do. I don't know that she really is (perhaps she's just trying to be nice while wondering why I recklessly spend our hard-earned money) so I punt the decision and decide that I will come back when we are done with the rest of our shopping. As we walk through TJs, we get to the egg section and my wife asks if it's cool if we buy eggs from TJs (I usually buy them from the farmer's market). The eggs that she picks up are organic and free-range. Probably mass-produced on a huge farm and sold through TJs, but on the product level itself, pretty good on the environmentally sustainability spectrum. And they're $4 / dozen vs. the $6 / dozen I pay for the organic, free-range eggs I buy from a rancher at the farmer's market. I say of course we can pick up these eggs (it's not a bad choice, offers decent value, and I don't want to dictate her chioces and don't want her to feel guilty).
And with that, I think we've just implicitly made our compromise about the beef. We're spending $2 less on eggs at TJs (for a product that is decent, and without the benefits of the local economy / buying from the guy I know), and I can buy the local, organic, grass-fed beef from the farmer's market for $2-4 more.
That's a lot of consideration over 1 lb. of ground beef for hamburgers. I know that people have different values and need to make chioces according to those - and I totally respect that. What would you do?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Green Propaganda
No, this isn't a post about the name or origins of this site, this is a post to call out what really IS green propaganda. I recently found a post on USA Today about one of James Hansen's blog entries (famous NASA climatologist and outspoken climate change advocate). In it he advises: "Do not fall for the moguls' dirtiest trick – 'green' messages spewed to the public. That is propaganda, intended to leave the impression they are moving in the right direction." (blog entry here.)
I could not agree more. Staying in the US again for the first time in a long time, I am surprised at how "green" advertising has gotten. Not only are there tons of "green" ads in magazines, but "green" ads are making their way onto network television. This may not be a good thing however, as companies try to capitalize on growing green consciousness with products aimed at this market - products that may or may truly reflect more environmentally friendly practices or footprints.
My own personal "enemy number one" is ExxonMobil. They have embarked on a highly visible campaign with the tagline "Taking on the World's Toughest Energy Challenges." One of their commercials talks about how they are investing in technology that will let discover and tap into energy in ever-more-remote places. The commercial says nothing about conservation or the environmental impacts of continued high fossil fuel usage. Another more "green" commercial, touts how cars have become more efficient today and how Exxon is investing in making cars more efficient. This commercial (Europe) is particularly galling, especially given the fact that Exxon is PROUD to be investing virtually nothing in alternative energy or renewable energy while making record profits and lining their own pockets.
Send a message to Exxon that we won't stand for their green-washing ways, and boycott Exxon and Mobil gas stations (heck, boycott driving every once in a while also.) Take action and send Exxon emails asking them to prove their commercials to be true, to show us what percentage of their R&D is actually being invested in truly environmentally friendly technologies. This company has proven, time and time again, that they could care less about reducing the world's energy footprint and are more than happy to continue to turn fossil fuels into pure profit for themselves and their shareholders. 20 years on from the terrible Exxon Valdez spill, and Exxon is STILL one of the worst corporate environmental offenders. Shame.
I could not agree more. Staying in the US again for the first time in a long time, I am surprised at how "green" advertising has gotten. Not only are there tons of "green" ads in magazines, but "green" ads are making their way onto network television. This may not be a good thing however, as companies try to capitalize on growing green consciousness with products aimed at this market - products that may or may truly reflect more environmentally friendly practices or footprints.
My own personal "enemy number one" is ExxonMobil. They have embarked on a highly visible campaign with the tagline "Taking on the World's Toughest Energy Challenges." One of their commercials talks about how they are investing in technology that will let discover and tap into energy in ever-more-remote places. The commercial says nothing about conservation or the environmental impacts of continued high fossil fuel usage. Another more "green" commercial, touts how cars have become more efficient today and how Exxon is investing in making cars more efficient. This commercial (Europe) is particularly galling, especially given the fact that Exxon is PROUD to be investing virtually nothing in alternative energy or renewable energy while making record profits and lining their own pockets.
Send a message to Exxon that we won't stand for their green-washing ways, and boycott Exxon and Mobil gas stations (heck, boycott driving every once in a while also.) Take action and send Exxon emails asking them to prove their commercials to be true, to show us what percentage of their R&D is actually being invested in truly environmentally friendly technologies. This company has proven, time and time again, that they could care less about reducing the world's energy footprint and are more than happy to continue to turn fossil fuels into pure profit for themselves and their shareholders. 20 years on from the terrible Exxon Valdez spill, and Exxon is STILL one of the worst corporate environmental offenders. Shame.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Earth Hour
Earth Hour is coming up again. For those of you who don't know, Earth Hour is one hour each year where people around the world band together, turn off all their electricity for one hour, and voice their solidarity for creating a more thoughtful global society that understands the impacts of their lifestyles. This year, it is 8:30pm (20:30 for those Europeans out there!) on March 28.You can find more information at this website: http://www.earthhour.org This year they are hoping to get people in 1000 cities across the world to participate. I highly encourage everyone to do so.
Although the act of turning off all your electricity for 1 hour (unplug stuff!!!) admittedly doesn't in and of itself do much for the world, you'll be surprised at how it can affect you. Every facet of our lives today revolves around the convenient usage of energy. Without electricity, there's almost nothing we can do. Yet at the same time, without electricity, sitting in the darkness, you somehow reconnect with something much more primitive, somehow glimpsing how life must have felt 200 years ago. Or perhaps, how life feels today for people not privileged or lucky enough to have the luxuries of modern electricity that the rest of us enjoy.
Join in Earth Hour, spread the word, show support for a more aware society, and learn something about yourself while doing so. 8:30pm, March 28. Looking forward to NOT seeing you online.
Monday, March 09, 2009
The Business of Being Green
Spent a few days last week at a Travel Goods Industry trade-show in Las Vegas, helping a friend who is selling luggage tags and the like exhibit. In the process, I got a chance to walk around the show and see the latest and greatest in travel goods (or so it was supposed to be.. the show was down drastically from previous years... rumor on the floor had it that it was down 40% YOY, so the show was actually a lot smaller than I thought it would be.)
In any case, it was interesting to walk the show and see growing numbers of products touting how "green" they were. From a pretty weak base - there really aren't that many green travel goods - the number of people TALKING about being green is slowly getting more impressive. However, the number of products that are REALLY green.. that's another story. This industry, like many others, seems to be jumping on the green marketing bandwagon, but less so on the truly green bandwagon.
One over-the-top example was a line of canvas bags from Case Logic, labeled in big, earthy letters as "Earth Friendly, 100% Cotton." When I inquired as to what type of cotton it was that made the bags so earth friendly, the reply was... "Uh, they're not any special type of cotton. They're just regular cotton. But that's why it's earth friendly, because it's made out of cotton. Not some synthetic material." On their website you can find this line in the features section:
"-Doing your part- Made from earth friendly 100% cotton canvas"
Really? I mean, c'mon.
A second company was advertising it's new Eco-line of products, which essentially consisted of a bunch of canvas grocery bags. Another company was touting an interesting product (a tiny bag that unfolded to fit over one of those airport security check trays) but was completely laced with anti-microbial chemicals. Not sure how environmentally friendly that really is.
Yet, at the same time, I was happy to have found a few really environmentally friendly companies, the main one that I'll highlight here being "Act2 GreenSmart." These guys make laptop carrying cases and messenger bags out of 100% recycled PET, much like Patagonia does. From what I could gather, they source their PET from Japan and produce their bags in Taiwan and China. I don't know about the social aspects of the CSR, but I talked with the founder, Tom Larsen, and got the impression that he's pretty serious about being a socially responsible, sustainable business. I picked up one of the bags at the end of the show, and it looks good, feels great, and seems to be made with thought and care. It's high quality stuff.
A second company that deserves to be mentioned is Eton - the guys who are responsible for making those hand-crank radios and flashlights. They've gotten really advanced, and Eton's stuff, under their own brand, the Red Cross brand, and Grundig, is really high quality stuff. They're not cheap, but they're a pretty environmentally friendly way to charge stuff, listen to the radio in out of the way places, and keep in touch via short-wave radio. Most of them have built in solar chargers in addition to the hand-crank. And they look good too. Pretty cool.
So, despite most of the show being a disappointment in terms of truly "green" products (those companies that are not green are REALLY not green), there were some shining lights here and there. It gives me hope. Now we just have to get out there and support these guys, and let our money do our talking for us. Bypass the greenwashers, spend money with the really green.
In any case, it was interesting to walk the show and see growing numbers of products touting how "green" they were. From a pretty weak base - there really aren't that many green travel goods - the number of people TALKING about being green is slowly getting more impressive. However, the number of products that are REALLY green.. that's another story. This industry, like many others, seems to be jumping on the green marketing bandwagon, but less so on the truly green bandwagon.
One over-the-top example was a line of canvas bags from Case Logic, labeled in big, earthy letters as "Earth Friendly, 100% Cotton." When I inquired as to what type of cotton it was that made the bags so earth friendly, the reply was... "Uh, they're not any special type of cotton. They're just regular cotton. But that's why it's earth friendly, because it's made out of cotton. Not some synthetic material." On their website you can find this line in the features section:
"-Doing your part- Made from earth friendly 100% cotton canvas"
Really? I mean, c'mon.
A second company was advertising it's new Eco-line of products, which essentially consisted of a bunch of canvas grocery bags. Another company was touting an interesting product (a tiny bag that unfolded to fit over one of those airport security check trays) but was completely laced with anti-microbial chemicals. Not sure how environmentally friendly that really is.
Yet, at the same time, I was happy to have found a few really environmentally friendly companies, the main one that I'll highlight here being "Act2 GreenSmart." These guys make laptop carrying cases and messenger bags out of 100% recycled PET, much like Patagonia does. From what I could gather, they source their PET from Japan and produce their bags in Taiwan and China. I don't know about the social aspects of the CSR, but I talked with the founder, Tom Larsen, and got the impression that he's pretty serious about being a socially responsible, sustainable business. I picked up one of the bags at the end of the show, and it looks good, feels great, and seems to be made with thought and care. It's high quality stuff.
A second company that deserves to be mentioned is Eton - the guys who are responsible for making those hand-crank radios and flashlights. They've gotten really advanced, and Eton's stuff, under their own brand, the Red Cross brand, and Grundig, is really high quality stuff. They're not cheap, but they're a pretty environmentally friendly way to charge stuff, listen to the radio in out of the way places, and keep in touch via short-wave radio. Most of them have built in solar chargers in addition to the hand-crank. And they look good too. Pretty cool.So, despite most of the show being a disappointment in terms of truly "green" products (those companies that are not green are REALLY not green), there were some shining lights here and there. It gives me hope. Now we just have to get out there and support these guys, and let our money do our talking for us. Bypass the greenwashers, spend money with the really green.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Where has the logic gone?
Saw one of those horrendous mobile billboard trucks on the road today and was VERY surprised to see "We do it green" advertised on the back of the truck. What?!?! If you don't know what a mobile billboard company is, basically, they drive small trucks around with a big billboard stuck on the back, advertising something or another. It's easily one of the best examples of how our economy has completely lost it's mind, as this business model no doubt promises the potential for profit (or else it wouldn't exist), even though they make no sense whatsoever from an environmental, social, or any other perspective. Driving a billboard around to advertise so that other people driving around can go and buy some product that they don't need. This is EXACTLY how our economy should operate.
But, beyond this insanity, this company has the AUDACITY to talk about greening their business? I'm sorry, as much as I'm for eco-modernization, technological breakthroughs, CSR, and the like, SOME business models just SHOULD NOT EXIST. Green-washing on this scale is either complete self-delusion or pandering to current interests.
Check out what these guys have to say here: Do It Outdoors
Funny. Or sad. I can't tell.
But, beyond this insanity, this company has the AUDACITY to talk about greening their business? I'm sorry, as much as I'm for eco-modernization, technological breakthroughs, CSR, and the like, SOME business models just SHOULD NOT EXIST. Green-washing on this scale is either complete self-delusion or pandering to current interests.
Check out what these guys have to say here: Do It Outdoors
Funny. Or sad. I can't tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
