Archive for March, 2009

A few posts ago I talked about how products were over packaged and it needed to be reduced. I also talked about the reasons I felt that there is so much packaging - none of which really serve the consumer.

Well, I just came across this article about Globe Guard Packaging and I would have to say they have the right idea. They are listening to the consumers and their customer and developing products to serve their needs.

Here’s a quote from them…

You can read the rest of the article at Sustainable is Good.

Right now various levels of government are in talks with the auto sector trying desperately to keep it alive. After all, too many jobs are at stake to allow it to fail.

I’m sorry… are we missing the point?

It’s not a huge secret that the North American approach to transportation (that is, the private car) is extremely damaging to the environment. For years governments have been desperately trying to motivate people to use public transportation. The results from their efforts have been almost non-existent.

Here are the two main reasons why I think this is:

• Public transportation is not as convenient as a private car. With public transportation I have to adjust my schedule to fit that of everyone else. I do not have the freedom to come and go as easily as in a car. In addition, a trip on public transportation often takes longer than in a car.

• For the most part, the auto sector is not selling transportation. That may sound odd, but if you watch their marketing carefully you will discover that they are selling an image. Almost none of the commercials are about how a vehicle can transport you. They are all about how the vehicle will make you feel and how others will admire you.

We know that we need to make some changes in our society. We are trying to get people to make those changes by promoting public transportation. We are currently faced with an opportunity – the auto sector is failing. But we just don’t have courage to see the changes through.

We reason that we can’t allow people to lose their jobs or their investments – so we prop up an environmentally damaging industry because of politics. After all, any government that allowed that many people to lose their jobs would surely lose the next election.

Bust as is usually the case, it doesn’t have to be an “either or” case… we can make compromises, change the way we’re doing things, and make improvements for both the economy and the environment.

What if the stimulus money that is being injected into the ailing auto sector was instead directed towards public transportation projects? What if we improved public transportation so that it did become expedient and comfortable? What if we helped the auto sector workers apply their current skills to building, selling, running, and maintaining public transportation?

What if we used those companies that build cars and car parts to make public transportation convenient rather than propping them up so they can promote their products as an image?

We have an opportunity for change here. Why are we continuing to force life into an industry that damages the environment and is proving itself to be economically unfeasible? I would suggest it is because of politics – but politics never protected the environment.

Please let me know your comments.

When discussing changes for the good of the environment we have to remember that people will do what they believe is best for them. This is a basic psychological principle; people make choices based on what they believe to be best for them.

If we can show people how small changes for the environment can benefit them, benefit their children, and even benefit their wallets, we will start seeing those changes take place in their lives.

Unfortunately, government leaders are guided by the same principles – they make choices based on what benefits them. I say unfortunately because many politicians become confused about what is best for them. For a politician, is an improvement in the environment best or is staying in power best?

Keep in mind that in order to stay in power a politician does not have do the right thing, s/he simply has to appear to be doing the right thing.

I find that many politicians make a career out of appearances. They make grand announcements about what they are doing when in reality their plans have little impact. In fact, often impact some area negatively, including our budgets. Those impacts divert money that could be used to improve the environment into projects that have no return.

Not all projects are this way – but a lot of them are. For instance, here’s an article about the United Nations making a big announcement about their participation in earth hour. It’s a big announcement that appears great, but is it really benefiting anyone.

As the article points out, the United Nations could make a very real improvement on their environmental impact simply by changing the vehicles they use – but unfortunately, that would involve sacrifice and it would have the same appearance as turning the lights out.

You can see the full article at Fox News.

As I’ve said before, we consume too much and we pollute too much. Turning off the lights for an hour is a great idea – if it has a real impact on the environment. If all it does is make a symbolic gesture I would rather people keep the lights on and spend the hour planning how they can reduce pollution on their own.

Let us know your thoughts.