Archive for March, 2009

We as a society admit that many products are over packaged – but have you ever wondered why?

It’s certainly not for the benefit of the environment. We buy a small product and end up throwing away a mass of boxes, wrappers and blister packs.

I suggest that there are four reasons why manufactures insist on over packaging their products.

1) It protects the products – I actually suspect that this is actually the least important reason
2) It makes it more difficult to steal. A small product can not be slipped away as easily when it is in a big package.
3) It creates a higher perceived value. People associate value with size. A tiny mp3 player seems more valuable when it is in a big package.
4) People are less likely to return an item that they bought on impulse if the (big) blister pack is damaged.

In my opinion, reasons 3 and 4 are the most likely motivators.

We need to realize that the packages are not helping us and they are not helping the environment. We need to say enough of the over packaging.

How can we go about doing this? I would like to hear your thoughts.

In the previous post I discussed one problem with giant solar farms. On the surface they appear to be a great idea. Who wouldn’t want to create energy cleanly from the sun?

Unfortunately, there are factors involved that we miss – one being the destruction of sensitive ecosystems.

Here’s an excerpt from and article that discusses just such a situation that is occurring out in the Mojave Dessert.

You can read the rest of the article at Time’s Website.

Is it okay to sacrifice one part of the environment to save another? That’s a tough question.

In one sense we do it all the time. While tearing apart the environment to build roads and cities, we also create conservation areas and natural parks that will be preserved. It’s a careful balancing trying to allow for economic growth while still protecting the ecosystems surrounding us.

In fact, those ecosystems are not just around us. We are very much a part of them – both as protectors and destroyers.

I don’t deny the very real need at times to build roads, cities, farms, and other elements of our existence – however we need to do so in as environmentally friendly a manner as (realistically) possible. The days of economic growth at any cost to the environment are over.

That brings us to the problem of organizations that are selling an environmental solution. Sometimes that solution really is something that our environment will benefit from. Other times however, the solution provides only a marginal benefit or even, significant costs.
Read the rest of this entry »