Showing posts with label Stupid Green Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stupid Green Ideas. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Stupid Green Ideas: Dell's Tree-Saving Boxes...

A friend of mine recently had a package delivered to him that looked as though it had been kicked around as a practice ball for England's upcoming stab at the World Cup. The tarnished box came from Dell, one of the world's largest computer and hardware manufacturers in the world. My friend tossed me the box and told me to take a look at the label attached on the side. Expecting to see one of the typical "we are sorry about the condition of the package, it was damaged during travel", I was very surprised to instead see the words inscribed, "We apologize for the condition of this package. Dell is reusing packaging to save trees."

As my friend said in a more polite fashion, what a load of bull. I admire the desire to try and "green" itself, but this is pushing it. My friend rightly believes that they are not reusing the boxes for environmental reasons, but rather to save money. They should admit it, rather than trying to greenwash consumers. It's similar to a case where I tell my friends that I won't wash the dishes for a week because cleaning them in bulk is more efficient than in small spurts and less water and soap will be used. Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to that statement, we all know that the real reason is that I'm just lazy.

Don't pretend to be something you're not. You like like an idiot, and worse, you give the environmental movement a bad name.

But he was a little more sympathetic to the actual state of the box than I was. Granted, it was still structurally sound and the product inside was protected with bubble wrap. But when I saw the box, the first thing that I thought was how bad Dell looked. Now I realize that we live in a consumer culture where aesthetically pleasing packaging is an environmental folly and that we shouldn't focus so much on the appearance of packaging, but there are ways to save money and/or be more environmentally friendly that won't make your packages -- Dell was built on packaged and mailed products -- look like junk. When someone sends me something by mail in a package, significant damage to the package indicates to me that at some point in the trip perhaps something else more important was damaged.

I do not know the packaging industry particularly well, nor do I pretend to understand the technology overly comprehensively, but I'm sure there are substitutes to reusing cardboard boxes that won't have a massive impact on the presentation of the packaging. Perhaps supply chain management could develop some innovative reusable box system or maybe the boxes could be compostable. Of course, Dell would unlikely go for any of those considering its true motive is probably financial.

But if I were Dell, I would look to make 'green' improvements in other facets of my business that don't make the average consumer wonder whether having them send something by mail is a liability to the product. But most of all, as my friend pointed out, don't pretend to do something for environmental reasons if that isn't your main intention.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Stupid Green Ideas: Climate Change Chocolate...

Several weeks ago while attending a conference and trade show in Toronto, I stopped by the booth for a small but prestigious downtown Toronto law firm. After chatting with the young articling student tasked with the poor duty of standing around all day, she handed me a chocolate bar.

I'm used to getting free stuff at these things, but never an entire chocolate bar. Moreover, this was no ordinary chocolate bar. It was a Climate Change Chocolate Bar.


For each chocolate bar produced, a carbon offset group known as TerraPass will offset 133 pounds of carbon dioxide production in one of their projects somewhere in the world. The 133 pounds is not meant to offset the environmental impact of the chocolate bar itself, but rather the average daily carbon impact of an American person, although I'm not sure how verifiable that figure is.

So basically, when you bite down into the chocolate -- which wasn't half bad -- you can happily pat yourself on the back knowing that any carbon emissions you produce that day will be taken care of by someone else.

Wow! This is fantastic. All of these 'green' folks keep telling me all the things I need to do to reduce my personal carbon emissions. You know, turn off my lights, ride a bike, put solar panels on my roof and other things that will inconvenience my life. Screw 'em! I don't need to change anything. I'll just jump back in my Escalade, eat my chocolate bars and let someone else take care of it. Plus, the labels contain different environmentally-friendly things people can do, just in case you don't feel the chocolate is enough.

Apart from the fact that carbon offset groups aren't seriously regulated, their offset projects don't always work and the actual offset calculations are often arbitrary, I don't see anything else wrong with this.

I may have produced a pound or two of carbon while writing this. Good thing I have this chocolate bar...

 

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Stupid Green Ideas: No pee on this plane...


I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it sitting in my inbox. The headline said it all: "Japanese airline wants you to go before boarding".

A Japanese airline, All Nippon Airways (ANA), has introduced a pilot program (pardon the pun) asking its passengers to use the washroom before boarding for a flight.

The reason, you ask?

ANA believes that if every passenger chooses to use the washroom before boarding, the weight of the plane will decrease, ultimately increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the flight.

Here's the math they use. On average, a human being carries up to one litre in their bladder, which weighs approximately one kilogram. Each flight can carry 247 passengers. So if everyone goes to the washroom before boarding, in theory the flight should be 247 kg lighter. Over the course of one month and 42 flights, ANA hopes to achieve a 5-tonne GHG reduction.

Several issues arise with this policy. Firstly, most people already go to the washroom before boarding a flight, so the theoretical savings are probably well overshot. And they certainly don't do this for the environment, but instead for convenience because they don't want to go through the hassle of lining up to use the shaky in-flight toilets.

Secondly, this could be a pain for passengers. Along with all the security protocols people have to go through these days at the airport, the last thing many people will want as they present their boarding pass is someone asking them if they have gone to the washroom yet. This was common when I was a kid, but it was my parents asking me, not airline staff.

Thirdly, this gives a bad name to environmental policies all across the board. It's fairly condescending and any backlash would not be particularly surprising. Hopefully its sheer silliness and short life span (fingers crossed) will lead it to be ignored and fall into the forgotten gallows of time forever.

One reporter on CBC made a very good point when she asked what might be next? Are they going to ask you to eat beforehand, too? (This wouldn't be all that effective either, though, considering the reputation for the quality of airline food...).

Unsurprisingly, Canada's major airlines are making no such steps. Westjet even called it "a bit extreme".

Let's just hope ANA flushes this one down the toilet. Before getting on the flight, of course.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Stupid Green Ideas: hybrid parking spots...




A recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Environmentally concious shoppers get prime parking spots", reports that a large local shopping mall has reserved several parking spots near the building for hybrid vehicles. The aim -- at least, from the mall's marketing director -- is to reward more environmentally concious drivers by giving them membership to the exclusive club previously limited to expecting mothers and the handicapped.

Apparently this is not the first of its kind. Larger box stores like IKEA and Whole Foods have dipped into these waters, too.

So is it a silly idea?

Well, enforcement is a bugger. Finding non-permit vehicles parked in handicapped spots is certainly not a rarity and such an offence probably strikes witnesses much more severely than parking illegally in a hybrid spot.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of hybrids over traditional vehicles is certainly not absolute. What if the hybrid driver drives tens times as much as the driver of an SUV? Which of these drivers should really be rewarded? And furthermore, hybrids are not always the most fuel-economic vehicles. Lexus has several hybrids, one of which has 438 HP V8 engine. Its fuel economy is worse than that of its parent company's Toyota Tacoma pickup truck. Even Cadillac's Escalade (pictured above) has a hybrid version. There is no way these vehicles should be given priority over non-hybrid, but more fuel-efficient vehicles. And what about an electric car? Would it qualify?

Thirdly, lots of people think poorly of hybrids because the drivers are sometimes perceived to be rich, snobby, self-righteous, do-gooding elites. They always aren't, but the perceptions will stick and this certainly won't help. Most people don't have a problem giving priority to the handicapped or expecting mothers, but they might think the hybrid spot a tad elitist.

Lastly, this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy for those who employ such a strategy. It allows the stores to brand themselves as 'green' and attract more customers, without actually implementing an effective policy. It just looks good.

So yes, it is silly.

But then again, even if it is silly, at least it is something. The majority of hybrids out there are much more fuel-efficient than the rest of vehicles on the road. It probably won't hurt anyone, since angry drivers will soon drop their threats of switching supermarkets and just find another spot. And lots of corporations are employing 'green' strategies, so a harmless one like this can't hurt, right?

That is of course, if you live by the mantra 'an empty policy is better than no policy'.

I don't own a hybrid, but I do spot one in the parking lot across the way. I think I might steal the 'hybrid' logo on its rear end and attach it to my car so I can take advantage of this great deal.

Out of my way, soon-to-be mothers and handicapped, I'm saving the world!