GreenSmart Notebook - Tom Larsen

Displacement creates a plus one for the Planet

At GreenSmart we developed a perspective some time ago that we thought was and still is the most achievable way to make progress toward reducing the resources required to make bags (anything actually, but, GreenSmart makes bags). We considered areas where eco-progress over a number of years was identifiable, like the chlorofluorocarbon issue and the Antarctic Ozone Hole or the incredible air quality improvements found in California as two examples among many in which we consistently found that the environmental improvements over time were the result of millions of individual consumer actions.

Whether those actions are regulated or not, the fact is, individual consumers were the contributors to the eco-progress, through the products they purchased, used or consumed. They bought “aerosols” without CFCs and they bought cars with catalytic converters, among many other seeming small product manufacturing changes. By industry changing its approach to making products that consumers purchase, a reversal of long term environmental degradation was not only possible, but measurable and fast, measured in years, not decades or lifetimes.

These observations of individual cause creating macro effect, lead me to a term for this activity; “displacement theory”. In a nutshell, every time a product with an eco-improved construction or fabrication process is sold in the marketplace, the conventionally made alternative is not sold. In a scorekeeping sense, since the eco-conscious product creates a plus one for the planet. Until such time as a consumer would discard the eco-conscious product in favor of the conventional product, the plus one remains.

We find “displacement theory” to be a very exciting and motivating concept. Each time a GreenSmart bag is sold, planet earth comes out ahead; resource consumption is reduced, former plastic bottles are put to new use and workers are treated respectfully.

The concept is not perfect? Nothing is perfect. But, GreenSmart is very open about its pursuit of eco-progress, not eco-perfect. If consumers are going to buy a product anyway – shouldn’t we all work to ensure that they are getting the option to buy the most eco-conscious product possible? We may work for many, many years to try to change the behavior of consumers and still get nowhere. In the meantime, those consumers will have purchased hundreds of items that could have been more eco-conscious which could have improved the planet all along. GreenSmart wants to endorse, in fact create that progress.

GreenSmart as much as any business, needs to be adaptable as better processes and practices come along. GreenSmart will also need to pay attention to the consumer’s behavior, in case their tastes change. But, that the norm for all businesses – adjust to improvement it can find and pay attention to the market? I would say it is.

As our bottle count approaches 1 million bottles removed from the landfill stream, we take great pride in offering the greener alternative. Eco-conscious vs. conventional (thank you Judi Shils of Teens Turning Green for the contrast terms). Let’s hope the second million bottles comes more quickly than the first million bottles as our Displacement theory continues to make strides.

 

The "Big Story" I saw at CES this year.

The media likes to focus on the latest and greatest because it is "new". I saw stories about a new Samsung TV that is thin and huge and won't be available until November, if that among other bleeding edge reports. As an exhibitor watching people go by, though, I saw a different story from CES this year. 

This year, in a way not seen last year or really in prior years, was the year of the broad deployment of the "smart" device and people actually using them for more than email. Everyone in the aisles had a smart phone or tablet. That's not unexpected at an event like CES. These aren't new devices and simply having one is not really a big deal. The difference this year was how many people were actually using them on the aisle or in the booth.

Take the attendees who took pictures on their phones and filed them for reference when they got back to their office. Some uploaded those images to cloud based apps in folders. Take the exhibitors who were scanning badges with an app or uploading photos of business cards for later use in a database. Take the fact that the AT&T network was periodically crushed for lack of bandwidth for 150,000 "extra" multiple device enabled people in Las Vegas.

As a bag (protection) supplier for handheld and laptop devices, it serves us to understand when adoption is broader than the early adopters and ultra geeks, to the broader general public. All the attendees and exhibitors were using technology in ways not possible 2 years ago, or if it was, at a hefty price.

Lots, and I mean lots of people were two device people (or maybe three). They have a smart phone with the little smart phone screen be it Apple's or Motorola's or some other. They have a tablet of some kind be it an eReader or 7" screen or a 10" screen like an iPad. And, I suspect most have a laptop in their hotel rooms. Each had funtions for the individual that one or the other of these mostly interconnected appliances performed better for the individual user.

How everyone made decisions about which device to use for what purpose was personal. There was no "everyone was doing this". But, everyone was using their devices to be sure. Nowhere is that more apparent than walking anywhere and seeing or being bumped into by person after person, walking with their heads bowed slightly looking into their almost prayerfully positioned hands, transfixed by some communication or activity happening on the little device in their hands. If you think distracted driving is a hazard on the roads, imagine it with no lanes or dividers. At least the collisions were at only 2 or 3 mph.

That's my summary - massive adoption and actual usage of smart devices. An inertia I've seen sporadically in subways in NY or at airports, but, nowhere as embedded as I saw it at CES last week.

Seattle bans plastic bags

On Tuesday I just happened to be at Sea-Tac airport and glanced at the headlines on a newstand to learn that the Seattle city council the previous night had banned plastic bags. San Francisco and Portland have done it and other countries in Europe as well as China have done the same.

Seattle actually banned plastic bags and added a fee for paper bags back in 2008. The voters overturned that idea in a referendum funded by the plastic industry.

There are always pros and cons to any conversation about the bags we use to take home our consumer purchases. Recycle rates for plastic bags in Seattle are claimed at 85%. Rates for paper bags are claimed at 13% of the almost 300 million bags a year that are given away. Reusable bags, if containing nylon content or if they are a cotton/poly or poly/nylon blend, are not recyclable, but, could last for years. Carbon footprints of manufacture plus lifetime usage (do you launder the bags?) plus end of life issues are far from perfect as well.

Changing human behavior through legislation is difficult for many to accept. I don't actually have an opinion about whether banning plastic bags is a good idea, great idea, marginal idea or a bad idea. I do know that anytime we try to make anything seam simple, we always find out, usually much later, that it was not as simple as we thought. The experiment that Seattle is working toward, is an applaudable effort to provide a trial so we can all see the outcome in a few years. Now, in Seattle anyway, Chaos Theory, can start to work it's magic.

Happy Holidays - be sure to resuse the gift wrap!!