Hi All!
After this past week's class discussion on the video, Waste=Food, I really got to thinking about how buildings can be the key to environmental sustainability. The video discusses how advanced buildings can be completely self-sustaining and actually omit water that is cleaner than how it came into the building. The architect described the building like a tree, saying that there is not one particle of the plant that does not contribute good things to the environment. In setting out to build a sustainable building, these brains would only settle at fully duplicating this process. Of course, buildings like the Ford plant at Rouge River are not cheap. So, how do we accomplish the great task of actually helping the environment rather than hurting it? I was curious too! After further research I found an interesting article about the top 10 advances in green technology for commercial buildings. Some of the advances listed here were talked about in the movie, and I loved learning even more about how building can now be made sustainable.
My favorite aspect was actually #10, Green Roofs and Living Walls. I had heard of green roofs once prior to watching Waste=Food and reading this article, but I had just assumed the roof was a type of greenhouse. But had no idea that they were working gardens, doing expense tasks such as regulating building temperatures, or improving air quality, for free.
My second favorite was #1 because of how much it reminds me of the Waste=Food concept. For some reason, I really understand the Cradle to Cradle concept that the concept of waste should not really even exist. That waste should really be food for another "organism", and that we as a human race should create things that can be only be up-cycled for another necessary. The article lists it's number 1 advance in commercial buildings to be Mycoform Technology. This technology is a 100% natural, chemical free product that can act as an insulation. The product even biodegrades, a potential structural problem that can be easily alleviated by growing it inside of recycled metals. This product could ultimately replace bricks!!
Another interesting point was #5, Recycled and Sustainable Insulation. One company uses old, recycled blue jeans! My only concern with this product is that the article skims over the fact that they are treated to be fire retardant. To me this raises a flag about the potential harm that fire-proofing chemicals may contains. Would purchasing this product really even make a difference in contributing to the environment?
Take a look, there are some really interesting designs available now a days.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Think About It
Hi All!
Today's "Think About It" is a fun one!
"Because sustainability drives creativity and innovation, the move towards more sustainable products and services can revitalize a brand. Consider a brand that you think is growing tired. Does it have a reputation for social and environmental responsibility? What could be done to make it more sustainable? How might increased sustainability reinvigorate the brand? Consider the ten keys described earlier"
The 10 Keys to Sustainable Branding
1. Understand your brand
2. Understand your consumers
3. Get your own house in order
4. Integrate CSR
5. Innovate
6. Motivate
7. Collaborate
8. Communicate
9. Enlist your customers in achieving your sustainability goals
10. Measure, monitor, and report
I had a bit of a hard time coming up with a brand, so I enlisted the help of my roommates. One roommate mentioned Gillette. Although, the brand has stayed up to date with advertising, I think that the products are getting tired. I mean, how many more blades can they put on before it becomes excessive? How many types moisture strips can they come up with? "Sensitive skin, dry skin, double moisture, two moisture bars...", really?
After scanning the Gillette site map, and seeing thousands of takes on a single product, I was a bit surprised to see that there was not a link listed that suggests any type of sustainable practice. The closet thing listed was a product extension for "Pure and Sensitive" shave gel. However, the product is angled more towards free of harsh chemicals that would irritate the skin, not harm the environment.
I think that by following the 10 steps listed above, Gillette could successfully begin a new campaign to invigorate the brand and become more sustainable in the process. I think that consumers would respond well to them considering shaving gels, razor blades, and other creams are made up of chemicals and are intended to be washed down the drain or thrown out.
What do you think? Consider your shaving habits. Isn't it a bit wasteful? Toxic? Share your thoughts!
Today's "Think About It" is a fun one!
"Because sustainability drives creativity and innovation, the move towards more sustainable products and services can revitalize a brand. Consider a brand that you think is growing tired. Does it have a reputation for social and environmental responsibility? What could be done to make it more sustainable? How might increased sustainability reinvigorate the brand? Consider the ten keys described earlier"
The 10 Keys to Sustainable Branding
1. Understand your brand
2. Understand your consumers
3. Get your own house in order
4. Integrate CSR
5. Innovate
6. Motivate
7. Collaborate
8. Communicate
9. Enlist your customers in achieving your sustainability goals
10. Measure, monitor, and report
I had a bit of a hard time coming up with a brand, so I enlisted the help of my roommates. One roommate mentioned Gillette. Although, the brand has stayed up to date with advertising, I think that the products are getting tired. I mean, how many more blades can they put on before it becomes excessive? How many types moisture strips can they come up with? "Sensitive skin, dry skin, double moisture, two moisture bars...", really?
After scanning the Gillette site map, and seeing thousands of takes on a single product, I was a bit surprised to see that there was not a link listed that suggests any type of sustainable practice. The closet thing listed was a product extension for "Pure and Sensitive" shave gel. However, the product is angled more towards free of harsh chemicals that would irritate the skin, not harm the environment.
I think that by following the 10 steps listed above, Gillette could successfully begin a new campaign to invigorate the brand and become more sustainable in the process. I think that consumers would respond well to them considering shaving gels, razor blades, and other creams are made up of chemicals and are intended to be washed down the drain or thrown out.
What do you think? Consider your shaving habits. Isn't it a bit wasteful? Toxic? Share your thoughts!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
P&G Future Friendly Campaign
Hi All!
Have you heard about this yet? P&G has started (in 2010 that is) a Future Friendly campaign to promote greener products in the home in order to preserve our Earth for future generations. Apparently, this campaign was launch in the U.K. and Canada in 2007. P&G has put the Future Friendly logo on the packaging of all environmentally friendly products to help consumers navigate greener products. Additionally, the company says that it is working towards,
"[work] to educate its customers on how best to reduce the impact of their daily lives. In an interview in 2008, Procter & Gamble's Peter White explained how home use is responsible for the biggest overall energy use in a P&G product's lifecycle. The graphic below lays out the energy used at each phase of a product's life. The tall red bar represents customer energy use for laundry products, i.e. washing laundry in warm water."(source).
• Nearly three in four (74 percent) report they would switch to another brand if it helped them conserve resources without having to pay more and a similar amount (69 percent) report they would recommend the product to others.
• More than a third (37 percent) cite the lack of enough information about what to do as the top reason preventing people from leading a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
• A majority (58 percent) would be at least very likely to change the way they do daily chores if it helped them reduce waste, save energy and save water in their homes.
• Saving money is the most frequently mentioned reason for why consumers would take measures to reduce waste, save energy and save water in their home (64 percent) followed closely by preserving resources for future generations (56 percent).
(source).
Have you heard about this yet? P&G has started (in 2010 that is) a Future Friendly campaign to promote greener products in the home in order to preserve our Earth for future generations. Apparently, this campaign was launch in the U.K. and Canada in 2007. P&G has put the Future Friendly logo on the packaging of all environmentally friendly products to help consumers navigate greener products. Additionally, the company says that it is working towards,
"[work] to educate its customers on how best to reduce the impact of their daily lives. In an interview in 2008, Procter & Gamble's Peter White explained how home use is responsible for the biggest overall energy use in a P&G product's lifecycle. The graphic below lays out the energy used at each phase of a product's life. The tall red bar represents customer energy use for laundry products, i.e. washing laundry in warm water."(source).
Procter and Gamble has committed to provide conservation education at least 50 Million households in the U.S.
Here are some interesting statistics that companies should be interested to act on. P&G picked up on it...
• Nearly three in four (74 percent) report they would switch to another brand if it helped them conserve resources without having to pay more and a similar amount (69 percent) report they would recommend the product to others.
• More than a third (37 percent) cite the lack of enough information about what to do as the top reason preventing people from leading a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
• A majority (58 percent) would be at least very likely to change the way they do daily chores if it helped them reduce waste, save energy and save water in their homes.
• Saving money is the most frequently mentioned reason for why consumers would take measures to reduce waste, save energy and save water in their home (64 percent) followed closely by preserving resources for future generations (56 percent).
(source).
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Think About It
Hi All!
This week's "Think About It" is on a topic that I am somewhat passionate about.
"How do you feel about the news that your drinking water, streams, and rivers may be contaminated with prescription drugs? Who shares in the responsibility for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment? Does a marketer have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold?"
I have always been passionate about health. Recently, I have begun to research the connection between prescription drugs and health. I find that I am a minimalist when it comes to prescription drugs as a way to promote health. To hear that prescription drugs, that are typically pharmaceutical company pushed, are evading our ecosystems and potentially affecting people who are not on prescription drugs, really ticks me off.
In as much of a non-political view as possible, I really disagree with the pharmaceutical world because of how passionate I am about natural health. I don't know who should be responsible for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment, because I am not sure of how to really prevent it from happening. Should we blame the government for the treating waste properly? Should we blame the companies for creating such drugs? Should we blame the doctors for prescribing them? Or should we blame the population for depending on them?
As for if a marketer should have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold? I think that it could be hypocritical to say that they shouldn't. I would argue that marketers accept the glory of successful products, but won't carry the burden for products that harm people. I believe that the "success" of the large prescription drug industry is very dependent on how heavily marketers/pharmaceutical companies push the importance of their products to human health. But isn't it our responsibility as a society to educate ourselves in the reality of it all? I would say that it is a marketers job to inform the public, but instead they are doing an injustice to the public in pursuit of a dollar.
What do you think? Do you have as strong of feelings about this as I do?
This week's "Think About It" is on a topic that I am somewhat passionate about.
"How do you feel about the news that your drinking water, streams, and rivers may be contaminated with prescription drugs? Who shares in the responsibility for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment? Does a marketer have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold?"
I have always been passionate about health. Recently, I have begun to research the connection between prescription drugs and health. I find that I am a minimalist when it comes to prescription drugs as a way to promote health. To hear that prescription drugs, that are typically pharmaceutical company pushed, are evading our ecosystems and potentially affecting people who are not on prescription drugs, really ticks me off.
In as much of a non-political view as possible, I really disagree with the pharmaceutical world because of how passionate I am about natural health. I don't know who should be responsible for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment, because I am not sure of how to really prevent it from happening. Should we blame the government for the treating waste properly? Should we blame the companies for creating such drugs? Should we blame the doctors for prescribing them? Or should we blame the population for depending on them?
As for if a marketer should have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold? I think that it could be hypocritical to say that they shouldn't. I would argue that marketers accept the glory of successful products, but won't carry the burden for products that harm people. I believe that the "success" of the large prescription drug industry is very dependent on how heavily marketers/pharmaceutical companies push the importance of their products to human health. But isn't it our responsibility as a society to educate ourselves in the reality of it all? I would say that it is a marketers job to inform the public, but instead they are doing an injustice to the public in pursuit of a dollar.
What do you think? Do you have as strong of feelings about this as I do?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Think About It
Hi All!
In this week's "Think About It" clip on page 108, the authors ask us to ponder the notion of privatized clean water utilities.
"Evidence shows that businesses may often be better suited (in terms of experience, efficiencies, and captial) to develop and operate water utilities than governments are, and yet the very notion of letting a firm make a profit from public resource strikes many people as wrong. Critics of privatized water systems stress that clean water is a human right, and not a commodity to be bought and sold. What do you think? Should companies like Suez and Nestle be allowed to profit form local water supplies? How might better marketing practices avert the kinds of situations that might lead to backlash against businesses?"
These questions are very hard! As the book addresses there are two very valid sides to this argument. On one hand we have privatization that is benefitting society by delivering cleaner water to cities, and that same water to areas that had no prior access to water. Many governments neglect their water facilities, or just don't have the money to make necessary upgrades. "For authorization to make a profit from their services, private companies invest in water treatment and distribution facilities. In the case of Buenos Aires, Suez was able to deliver more and cleaner water throughout the city, including to its poorest areas, at lower prices than the government had" (108). This is a clear example of how private companies taking neglected water facilities from the government to enhance quality, can contribute to society in wonderful ways.
On the other hand, we have situations where privatized water plants do injustice to the surrounding communities. "In the developing world, water-for-profit models have made clean water inaccessible for many poor populations"(108). In few words, that simply wont work.
But what do I really think? If I had an all-knowing answer I would tell you. But I don't. None of us do. If privatization of water utilities is what it takes to control the mass amounts of water that we the human race consumes, or to provide clean water to third world countries, or to reduce the impact that waste water has on the ecosystem, than I think we should do it. I also believe that we are too much in a crisis to be fighting over someone making a profit or not, what it comes down to is that we are responsible for polluting the Earth's water supply, and now we are responsible for fixing it.
Maybe a solution would be to tax or fine any building, residential or commercial, that omits waste water. In turn, the money collected could go to Non-profit companies that own water utilities and make necessary updates to treatment facilities. This way, the non-for-profits would get funded with the money provided by the people responsible for the dilemma in the first place.
Tell me, what do you think?
In this week's "Think About It" clip on page 108, the authors ask us to ponder the notion of privatized clean water utilities.
"Evidence shows that businesses may often be better suited (in terms of experience, efficiencies, and captial) to develop and operate water utilities than governments are, and yet the very notion of letting a firm make a profit from public resource strikes many people as wrong. Critics of privatized water systems stress that clean water is a human right, and not a commodity to be bought and sold. What do you think? Should companies like Suez and Nestle be allowed to profit form local water supplies? How might better marketing practices avert the kinds of situations that might lead to backlash against businesses?"
These questions are very hard! As the book addresses there are two very valid sides to this argument. On one hand we have privatization that is benefitting society by delivering cleaner water to cities, and that same water to areas that had no prior access to water. Many governments neglect their water facilities, or just don't have the money to make necessary upgrades. "For authorization to make a profit from their services, private companies invest in water treatment and distribution facilities. In the case of Buenos Aires, Suez was able to deliver more and cleaner water throughout the city, including to its poorest areas, at lower prices than the government had" (108). This is a clear example of how private companies taking neglected water facilities from the government to enhance quality, can contribute to society in wonderful ways.
On the other hand, we have situations where privatized water plants do injustice to the surrounding communities. "In the developing world, water-for-profit models have made clean water inaccessible for many poor populations"(108). In few words, that simply wont work.
But what do I really think? If I had an all-knowing answer I would tell you. But I don't. None of us do. If privatization of water utilities is what it takes to control the mass amounts of water that we the human race consumes, or to provide clean water to third world countries, or to reduce the impact that waste water has on the ecosystem, than I think we should do it. I also believe that we are too much in a crisis to be fighting over someone making a profit or not, what it comes down to is that we are responsible for polluting the Earth's water supply, and now we are responsible for fixing it.
Maybe a solution would be to tax or fine any building, residential or commercial, that omits waste water. In turn, the money collected could go to Non-profit companies that own water utilities and make necessary updates to treatment facilities. This way, the non-for-profits would get funded with the money provided by the people responsible for the dilemma in the first place.
Tell me, what do you think?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Think About It
Hi All!
Today's "think about it" is a bit more personal.
"In your household, how often do environmental issues enter into discussion? Which members of your household are most likely to initiate such discussion? From where do they get their information?"
This is an interesting questions to me today, because I do not live with environmental activists in any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I could live in the most wasteful apartment on the block. Unfortunately, none of my roommates care too much to learn the consequences of being wasteful. Nor, would they be willing to spend the money to recycle, or buy greener cleaning products.
I have one roommate that is passionate about turning the lights off once you leave the room. She is not, however, interested in helping the environment. Rather, she is interested in helping her wallet. But, I'll accept that because its a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, my second roommate does not care about the environment or her wallet because she wouldn't turn out a light to save her life.
However, I would argue that we would be very good at recycling if we had the option to. Even though our building does not offer recycling, we naturally sort our trash! After the cardboard boxes, glass bottles, and tin cans begin to add up next to the trash bin, out of the apartment they go and into the trash-bin they land.
I would attribute our innate sorting skills to the recycling practices that had been drilled into our heads as children by our teachers and parents. To this day, my mother is an absolute recycling freak. I've never seen someone have the household recycling down to such a science.
What about you? What does your household look like in terms of environmental issue discussions? Also, were you programmed to sort your recyclables as a child?
Today's "think about it" is a bit more personal.
"In your household, how often do environmental issues enter into discussion? Which members of your household are most likely to initiate such discussion? From where do they get their information?"
This is an interesting questions to me today, because I do not live with environmental activists in any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I could live in the most wasteful apartment on the block. Unfortunately, none of my roommates care too much to learn the consequences of being wasteful. Nor, would they be willing to spend the money to recycle, or buy greener cleaning products.
I have one roommate that is passionate about turning the lights off once you leave the room. She is not, however, interested in helping the environment. Rather, she is interested in helping her wallet. But, I'll accept that because its a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, my second roommate does not care about the environment or her wallet because she wouldn't turn out a light to save her life.
However, I would argue that we would be very good at recycling if we had the option to. Even though our building does not offer recycling, we naturally sort our trash! After the cardboard boxes, glass bottles, and tin cans begin to add up next to the trash bin, out of the apartment they go and into the trash-bin they land.
I would attribute our innate sorting skills to the recycling practices that had been drilled into our heads as children by our teachers and parents. To this day, my mother is an absolute recycling freak. I've never seen someone have the household recycling down to such a science.
What about you? What does your household look like in terms of environmental issue discussions? Also, were you programmed to sort your recyclables as a child?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Comparing Footprint Calculator Results
Hey All!
Today I followed the chapter critical thinking exercise and compared the results of two carbon footprint calculators.
The first calculator results can be seen here.
The results of my second, below.
I found that both calculators asked for the same types of questions, but differed in the depth of each question. The first calculator gave testers the option to answer the question specifically or generally, and had very precise, but accurate, answer choices throughout. The second test I took was not nearly as detailed, and I feel gave me a good score because it gave a very general numbers for general answers.
For example, in the food section I got zero emissions for all of my answers because I do not eat any meat and eat organic "most of the time". I know for a fact, after seeing the first test, that there are many more questions to be asked because even if I am eating organic "most of the time" there is still some times when I do not which would have more than a zero impact. A good question that they could have asked would be, "Do you buy from local farmers, if not what countries does your produce come from?". I feel as though that question would be precise enough that it could calculate miles traveled, and from there the amount of emissions released. I find that this question is very relevant to calculating anyone's carbon footprint, because food is such a vital part of our daily activities that the way we purchase and eat contributes greatly to our footprints.
As for my results in the second calculator, although my results look decent a mere 8.5 compared to the 27 of the average U.S. citizen. However, even though I am a vegan and do not own a car or motorized bike, I am still 3 points above the world average per person. That means that although I live a greatly different (as in cleaner) life compared to my peers and fellow citizens, there is great room for improvement in my own life. This also tells us how much we as a culture NEED to change. I am not perfect and although I make an effort, I recognize that there are plenty of areas in my life that need improvement. But, if a vegan without a car in the U.S. is still 3 points above the world average, citizens eating grass-fed meat and driving a hybrid car have a significant amount to change, let alone those eating factory farmed meat and SUVs!
Today I followed the chapter critical thinking exercise and compared the results of two carbon footprint calculators.
The first calculator results can be seen here.
The results of my second, below.
I found that both calculators asked for the same types of questions, but differed in the depth of each question. The first calculator gave testers the option to answer the question specifically or generally, and had very precise, but accurate, answer choices throughout. The second test I took was not nearly as detailed, and I feel gave me a good score because it gave a very general numbers for general answers.
For example, in the food section I got zero emissions for all of my answers because I do not eat any meat and eat organic "most of the time". I know for a fact, after seeing the first test, that there are many more questions to be asked because even if I am eating organic "most of the time" there is still some times when I do not which would have more than a zero impact. A good question that they could have asked would be, "Do you buy from local farmers, if not what countries does your produce come from?". I feel as though that question would be precise enough that it could calculate miles traveled, and from there the amount of emissions released. I find that this question is very relevant to calculating anyone's carbon footprint, because food is such a vital part of our daily activities that the way we purchase and eat contributes greatly to our footprints.
As for my results in the second calculator, although my results look decent a mere 8.5 compared to the 27 of the average U.S. citizen. However, even though I am a vegan and do not own a car or motorized bike, I am still 3 points above the world average per person. That means that although I live a greatly different (as in cleaner) life compared to my peers and fellow citizens, there is great room for improvement in my own life. This also tells us how much we as a culture NEED to change. I am not perfect and although I make an effort, I recognize that there are plenty of areas in my life that need improvement. But, if a vegan without a car in the U.S. is still 3 points above the world average, citizens eating grass-fed meat and driving a hybrid car have a significant amount to change, let alone those eating factory farmed meat and SUVs!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)