More Method

http://greenerdesign.com/blog/2009/05/20/the-evolution-laundry-detergent.

I was reading through GreenerDesign.com and, once again, there was mention of Method. I have to admit, for a while I was getting a bit tired of always hearing about Method as this icon of green start-up perfection, and I was fairly skeptical of its true “green-ness.” However, over time, my opinion has changed. A teensy bit of skepticism remains in the back of my head, but I have realized that the goals and accomplishments of Method are actually pretty neat, and I might want to start something similar myself one day (probably not in cleaning products, though). The combination of green product, green packaging, and an elegant yet quirky form is something I envision all truly green products to have. But Method goes beyond the ingredients and form factor and is also beginning to redefine what it means to buy and use cleaning products. 

In the article I read, Adam Lowry talks about future plans for Method (some of which were mentioned during the guest lecture presentation in ME 222). Plans involve developing a laundry detergent that will bring a “fundamental change to the category.” While innovation is important to progress, it isn’t easy to successfully redefine routine things that people are generally comfortable with. For example, Lowry mentioned the desire to establish a Method refill system in stores to reduce the number of plastic bottles being produced and sold. In theory, this is a great idea, but in reality, it may not be so easy to implement. Now, Method isn’t perfect, but it is definitely taking the initiative to try new things while also remaining successful. I personally think they should take a risk and try to push one of their ideas closer to the edge, but perhaps they will do this once they have rooted themselves further into the market. I suppose we will see what happens. Either way, I think Method has set a good example for other start-ups, and I hope we will see many more amazing green companies in the near future.

Response to “Green Marketing Myopia”

This article is a good introduction to marketing. Even I do not have any background in this area before, I still enjoy reading “Green Marketing Myopia”. It has many case studies which are mainly about misconceptions when performing green marketing. To sell a product successfully, a company has to consider not only environmental effects of a product but also customer satisfaction. In the article, it mentions Philips’ CFL light bulbs which are considered to be “green product” and the company tried to use it as a selling point. The result was totally different from expectation. Consumers did not like clumsy shape and it was not compatible with other lamps. Later, Philips introduced “Marathon”, more refined CFL light bulbs, and it met customer’s needs. The product had a better feedback comparing previous version and an annual sales growth increased by 12 percent. To avoid green marketing myopia, the author offers “The Three Cs” principles: Consumer value positioning, Calibration of consumer knowledge, and Credibility of product claims. There are five factors that marketers have to take into account when dealing with green products. Main functions of products should reach those five benefits before selling “green” effect of the product, otherwise consumers might not feel that they “need” to buy the product. A lot of good case studies reflect how companies fulfill customer’s need. For example, Toyota Prius caught Symbolism aspect to underline how “green chic” the car is.

After reading this article, I realize that some thoughts can be applied to design process, especially user-centric design. To begin with user’s need is the most important step in design and marketing. I’m thinking of design courses at d.school which have a multi-disciplinary group members such as engineering students and MBA people. This article would link those two groups together.

Dan Lopez ME 222 DP3 Final Blog Post

Using the LCA approach outlined in the Okala Design Guide, my DP1 group and I concluded that, as predicted, paper towels cause far more environmental damage than hand driers.  However, our unexpected, more significant finding was that transportation-related impacts were the reason for paper towel’s greater impact.

Discovering the significant contribution of transportation to a products’ total impact offered insight into a simple, promising approach to increase product sustainability: restructuring manufacturing processes and materials procurement to minimize transportation costs.

Accordingly, while brainstorming possible sustainability projects for DP3, I tried to imagine lifestyle changes that would reduce transportation-related impacts.  My days brainstorming proved fruitless, but at their end I was undiscouraged, for after spending days trying to extrapolate my groups’ discoveries from our towels vs. driers analysis, I realized that a viable personal sustainability project had been staring me in the face the whole time.

Having just spent so much time researching the evils of paper towels, it occurred to me that it would be a shame for all that investigation to lead to no tangible outcome.  Thus, my first draft of my DP3 was born: I would affect a lifestyle change to reduce my consumption of paper towels, and thereby decrease their negative transportation-related impacts.

As it turned out, my initial focus on transportation fell to the wayside as I pondered specific ways to avoid using so many paper towels—which, surprisingly, proved far harder than I thought it would be.  Eventually, not wanting to mimic an oft-heard choice—to avoid using bathroom paper towels—I decided to try out the goal of reducing the number of napkins I used during each meal.

My inspiration hit me during breakfast, whilst eating my daily pair of grapefruit halves.  I discovered that I have the unconscious finger habit of crumpling my napkin right after using it once.  This left me, at the end of the meal, facing (to my disgust) a tray piled high with barely-used napkins—a sad, sloppy, disgusting waste.

After I found myself absent-mindedly, habitually repeating the mess the next day, I decided then and there to make ending napkin wastage my final DP3.

The next couple of days taught me that my project of choice would not prove an easy one.  It turned out that I actually did get fairly messy whilst cutting grapefruit, and I struggled daily to stick to my one-napkin-per-meal goal.  I also gradually began to notice trends in my eating habits, and in people’s general eating habits—but first, let me confess that while I’m proud to boast a 100% success rate for lunch and dinner, I sadly failed three times at staying to one napkin during breakfast.

Nevertheless, I consider my DP3 successful, as I have legitimately altered my behavior for the better, and after performing a bit of additional research on top of my group’s DP1 findings, I can claim that, if I halved my napkin use from 42 to 21 towels per week (assuming I eat three meals on weekends, which I usually do), then I can annually reap significant environmental savings.  Specifically, halving my napkin use saves (annually) 300 megajoules of energy, about 14.8 kg of oil (LCA resource depletion equivalent), and about 13.4 kg of carbon dioxide (LCA global warming equivalent).

I’m not quite sure about your estimation skills, but although those statistics sound satisfactorily substantial, I wanted a little bit more of an easily-understood metric of my savings.  The result: after looking up some unit-conversion factors, I estimate that my greenhouse-gas emissions savings equal the savings from eliminating (annually) one car trip of about 42.2 kilometers.

This wasn’t the enormous savings I was hoping for, honestly, but in hindsight, I have to keep reminding myself that I’m really just eliminating six paper towels a week from my total usage.  I shouldn’t, therefore, be surprised that the net savings don’t add up to much.

Nevertheless, if this class has taught me one thing, it’s that sustainability is a hugely complicated issue, and that there are (unfortunately) many ways in our lives where we unknowingly (or fully knowingly, and perhaps just apathetically) live out environmentally-harmful habits.  For that reason, though, small improvements like the ones I have achieved are significant, because by reminding me of the importance of environmental conscientiousness, they increase the likelihood of me adopting more sustainable habits elsewhere in my life.

I do have to admit, as I wind down this final post, that this DP3 has inspired me to fascinating thoughts about my eating habits—and more.  I’ll name a few examples as parting notes, starting with the curious discovery that my napkin usage seemed directly related to my utensil choice—when I used utensils, of course, for I learned that I have a rather rude habit of eating with my fingers.  Specifically, chopsticks and a spoon usually left my face and fingers the cleanest, although in the morning I was forced to use a spoon and knife by my cereal and grapefruit.

Additionally, I realized that eating slower left me generally cleaner, which inspired me to wonder whether my napkin wasting could also have been avoided had I simply vowed to be more polite and careful with my food.  This last thought struck me as especially significant, given how I’m learning in class (and witnessing firsthand) that people sadly all-too-often fail to adopt sustainable habits simply to be “green”, because it is the right, moral thing to do, and have to be coaxed through additional motivation.  My DP3, therefore, exemplifies a possible way that I could have “tricked” myself into a more sustainable habit by focusing on something else: improving my table manners.

In fact, I’ve become newly inspired by my DP3 to not just continue my napkin-saving, but to further refine my eating habits: specifically, to be generally more courteous, polite, clean, and unhurried at the table.  Thus, while this DP3 final blog ends here, you will be pleased to learn that both my original PSP, plus my new etiquette-improvement project, if you will, will continue.

I feel, therefore, that my final words of this blog post have to be a sincere thanks—for this opportunity to feel like I genuinely bettered myself (in so many ways) over the course of this project, which is something that happens far too rarely during my classes.  ■

- D.E.L.

Using the LCA approach outlined in the Okala Design Guide, my DP1 group and I concluded that, as predicted, paper towels cause far more environmental damage than hand driers.  However, our unexpected, more significant finding was that transportation-related impacts were the reason for paper towel’s greater impact.

Discovering the significant contribution of transportation to a products’ total impact offered insight into a simple, promising approach to increase product sustainability: restructuring manufacturing processes and materials procurement to minimize transportation costs.

Accordingly, while brainstorming possible sustainability projects for DP3, I tried to imagine lifestyle changes that would reduce transportation-related impacts.  My days brainstorming proved fruitless, but at their end I was undiscouraged, for after spending days trying to extrapolate my groups’ discoveries from our towels vs. driers analysis, I realized that a viable personal sustainability project had been staring me in the face the whole time.

Having just spent so much time researching the evils of paper towels, it occurred to me that it would be a shame for all that investigation to lead to no tangible outcome.  Thus, my first draft of my DP3 was born: I would affect a lifestyle change to reduce my consumption of paper towels, and thereby decrease their negative transportation-related impacts.

As it turned out, my initial focus on transportation fell to the wayside as I pondered specific ways to avoid using so many paper towels—which, surprisingly, proved far harder than I thought it would be.  Eventually, not wanting to mimic an oft-heard choice—to avoid using bathroom paper towels—I decided to try out the goal of reducing the number of napkins I used during each meal.

My inspiration hit me during breakfast, whilst eating my daily pair of grapefruit halves.  I discovered that I have the unconscious finger habit of crumpling my napkin right after using it once.  This left me, at the end of the meal, facing (to my disgust) a tray piled high with barely-used napkins—a sad, sloppy, disgusting waste.

After I found myself absent-mindedly, habitually repeating the mess the next day, I decided then and there to make ending napkin wastage my final DP3.

The next couple of days taught me that my project of choice would not prove an easy one.  It turned out that I actually did get fairly messy whilst cutting grapefruit, and I struggled daily to stick to my one-napkin-per-meal goal.  I also gradually began to notice trends in my eating habits, and in people’s general eating habits—but first, let me confess that while I’m proud to boast a 100% success rate for lunch and dinner, I sadly failed three times at staying to one napkin during breakfast.

Nevertheless, I consider my DP3 successful, as I have legitimately altered my behavior for the better, and after performing a bit of additional research on top of my group’s DP1 findings, I can claim that, if I halved my napkin use from 42 to 21 towels per week (assuming I eat three meals on weekends, which I usually do), then I can annually reap significant environmental savings.  Specifically, halving my napkin use saves (annually) 300 megajoules of energy, about 14.8 kg of oil (LCA resource depletion equivalent), and about 13.4 kg of carbon dioxide (LCA global warming equivalent).

I’m not quite sure about your estimation skills, but although those statistics sound satisfactorily substantial, I wanted a little bit more of an easily-understood metric of my savings.  The result: after looking up some unit-conversion factors, I estimate that my greenhouse-gas emissions savings equal the savings from eliminating (annually) one car trip of about 42.2 kilometers.

This wasn’t the enormous savings I was hoping for, honestly, but in hindsight, I have to keep reminding myself that I’m really just eliminating six paper towels a week from my total usage.  I shouldn’t, therefore, be surprised that the net savings don’t add up to much.

Nevertheless, if this class has taught me one thing, it’s that sustainability is a hugely complicated issue, and that there are (unfortunately) many ways in our lives where we unknowingly (or fully knowingly, and perhaps just apathetically) live out environmentally-harmful habits.  For that reason, though, small improvements like the ones I have achieved are significant, because by reminding me of the importance of environmental conscientiousness, they increase the likelihood of me adopting more sustainable habits elsewhere in my life.

I do have to admit, as I wind down this final post, that this DP3 has inspired me to fascinating thoughts about my eating habits—and more.  I’ll name a few examples as parting notes, starting with the curious discovery that my napkin usage seemed directly related to my utensil choice—when I used utensils, of course, for I learned that I have a rather rude habit of eating with my fingers.  Specifically, chopsticks and a spoon usually left my face and fingers the cleanest, although in the morning I was forced to use a spoon and knife by my cereal and grapefruit.

Additionally, I realized that eating slower left me generally cleaner, which inspired me to wonder whether my napkin wasting could also have been avoided had I simply vowed to be more polite and careful with my food.  This last thought struck me as especially significant, given how I’m learning in class (and witnessing firsthand) that people sadly all-too-often fail to adopt sustainable habits simply to be “green”, because it is the right, moral thing to do, and have to be coaxed through additional motivation.  My DP3, therefore, exemplifies a possible way that I could have “tricked” myself into a more sustainable habit by focusing on something else: improving my table manners.

In fact, I’ve become newly inspired by my DP3 to not just continue my napkin-saving, but to further refine my eating habits: specifically, to be generally more courteous, polite, clean, and unhurried at the table.  Thus, while this DP3 final blog ends here, you will be pleased to learn that both my original PSP, plus my new etiquette-improvement project, if you will, will continue.

I feel, therefore, that my final words of this blog post have to be a sincere thanks—for this opportunity to feel like I genuinely bettered myself (in so many ways) over the course of this project, which is something that happens far too rarely during my classes.  ■

- D.E.L.

China ban saves 40 million plastic bags

Like the former post ‘it’s all in the bags’, I also have something to share about plastic bags.

I went to germany in the summer of 2006 for an internship, while there, the biggest difference I found of stores in Germany with the stores back in my country – China, is that German store didn’t provide any plastic bags, if you forget to bring your own shopping bag, you can buy one at the counter with a price which looked pretty high for me back then. During the summer in Germany, I and other Chinese students, who are used to the tons of free plastic bags in super markets back in China, always forgot to bring our own bags. So we ended up almost buying one new bag everytime we go to a German super market.

However, to my suprise, two years later, China also took action to reduce the plastic bags usage in retail stores. From summer 2008, every retail store are required to charge 50 cent RMB (that is about 8 cent USD) for each plastic bag from the customer. While some don’t care about this small amount of money and always pays to get the bags, it certainly prevents many people from excessively using plastic bags in super markets. As shown in this link (http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2242886/china-plastic-bag-ban-effective), the ban of free plastic bags in China, imposed in 2008, has saved the use of an estimated 40 million plastic bags that would have taken 1.6 million tons of oil to produce.

While charging a fee for plastic bags is definitely a good way to reduce plastic bag usage, we can not count on the retailers to exceute this action for the sake of environment. Because what the retailers really seek is always money, and charging a fee for plastic bags from their customers will simply force these customers to turn to another retailer which provides free plastic bags. As a result, I think in a totally free ecnomic system, all retailers will provide free plastic bags to make themselves more competitive.

I’m not sure how Germany eliminate all the plastic bags in their stores, but I think having a law requiring ALL retailers to charge a same fixed amount of fee on plastic bags might be a good solution, since it’s effective to all the stores in the country, it does not make any paticular retailer less competitive, and they should be willing to accept this law.

100 mpg Hummer?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4319209.html

I stumbled upon this prototype today and thought I’d share it with the class.  A powertrain engineering company called Raser (FEV and GM joint venture) has created a hybrid power system for larger vehicles.  The prototype is built into a Hummer H3, although the system is being proposed for fleet vehicles such as pickup trucks and vans which are commonly used by companies to move parts and materials.  At nearly 6000 pounds, this vehicle is considerably heftier than a prius, and as a result the system is completely different from existing “hybrid” cars.

The cars we call hybrids today are not actually hybrids by the technical meaning of the word.  A hybrid power system has two sources of energy, and hybrids like the Prius and the Accord are only powered by gasoline.  These systems improve fuel efficiency through regenerative braking and balancing using the internal combustion engine to generate electricity and actually moving the vehicle.  The prototype from Raser is a true hybrid because it recieves energy from gasoline and electric power stations.  Furthermore, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is completely separated from mechanically moving the wheels.  Instead the ICE is used solely run a generator.  This allows for huge efficiency gains because the motor can be optimized around a fixed speed because the motor speed is independent of the vehicle speed.  The ICE runs at a constant speed at its peak efficiency.  This system is very similar to the setups found on most modern trains.

This technological approach is important because fleet vehicles are currently considerably less efficient than passenger vehicles.  They polute more, and are more expensive to operate.  While this system does increase the price of the vehicle by a considerable  amount, the improved efficiency should save companies money overall.  This market is important for reducing vehicle emissions on a huge scale, and it’s encouraging to see progress.

New Tesla Model S

I was on my way to Safeway yesterday when I passed the Tesla dealership and noticed a new car, besides the now famous Roadster, on the showroom floor. Turns out, it’s their new Model S.

I’ve been one of the biggest skeptics of Tesla ever since they started showing up at auto shows. I can’t quite wrap my head around the idea of driving an all electric sports car that doesn’t have a powerful, loud, combustion engine. It just doesn’t seem “red” enough to me. This second model is beginning to change my mind…

For starters, its priced below $50,000. While that price tag hardly caters to the average consumer, its definitely a step in the right direction. Aesthetically, the new design is much sleeker (kind of looks like an Aston Martin?) and overall seems more comfortable in the luxury sedan class than as the awkward step-sister to the sports car. I’m also glad that Tesla is expanding their product offering. It makes them seem like a more legitimate company rather than just a hobby for retired executives.

Overall, a step in the right direction that makes me wonder if this is the future of automobiles. Is Tesla the Ford of the next transportation revolution?

READ THIS BOOK! (an overdue response to Cradle-to-Cradle)

I read “Cradle to Cradle” over spring break (a friend recommended it to me) and really enjoyed this book. You should all READ IT. I’m not really the reading type (nor do I like books that just tell me to do less, recycle more, the world is ending, etc.) but this is a fast read, has great examples, isn’t too technical, and has come up innumerable times since I finished it. Plus, the book itself is a really cool object (check out the title of the intro, it isn’t made of paper!).

I went back and re-read the first two chapters, and truthfully, they make a whole lot more sense the second time around. You really need to read the entire book in order to understand McDonough and Braungart‘s full argument and even then, there are still a few holes. But even within the first two chapters (the ones assigned for class), the authors frame the environmental issue in a way that really makes sense to me. Though the first few pages use what sounded like “scare tactics,” they essentially argue that the conditions that we live in, surrounded by toxins and carcinogens being off-gased by nearly everything (even by the computer that I’m typing this on) are completely unnecessary. Industry and the environment don’t have to be at odds with each other, we just need to be smarter about our designs.

While I would have really like a few more in-depth examples of work that the author’s have done at their firm, this is a great book and is key to becoming more fluent in environmental design. I recommend that you read beyond the first two chapters; I definitely think you’ll find it’ll be worth your time.

It’s in the Bag!

There has to be a better way to get your groceries home. Whether we prefer paper or plastic, the fact remains that we use dozens of bags per visit to the local grocery store. Ninety five percent of the time, those bags just get thrown away ten minutes later.

When I was abroad in Germany, I noticed that they didn’t even have any complimentary bags (besides the tiny, thin vegetable bags), but you had to buy them for around 35 cents at the counter. This deterred a lot of people from using any bags at all. Here in the US, we are seeing some reusable bags being sold at the checkout counter, but are they the best solution? I feel that most shoppers wouldn’t plan ahead enough to bring their bags with them every time they want something, and most shoppers are too cheap to pay for a bag when they can have unlimited free ones. Additionally, I found this article about how they can be breeding grounds for bacteria and could pose a serious health risk:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2009/05/a-new-health-threat-ecofriendly-bags.html

Does anyone have a better solution? Maybe a reusable exchange program, where the stores collect and wash reusable bags (similar to washing and reusing glass bottles)? Should more stores start implementing a hefty fee for normal bags? Or discontinue them altogether?

Jordan Trip & PSP update

PSP continuation in Jordan: (forgot to upload earlier)
I am currently on a flight from Amman to London making my way back to San Francisco. During my 5 day stay in Jordan, I made a point of keeping my eyes open for anything interesting that might be worth a mention in my PSP. I also continued to use reusable water bottles during the day, though this turned out to be a much more difficult task than I expected.

In Jordan, tap water is not nearly as clean as it is in the US. Though the situation is not as bad as neighboring Egypt, or other countries in Africa and the Middle East, it is still advisable not to drink tap water. As such, many homes resort to bottled water or larger water containers. When you go out to a restaurant, you do not have the option of drinking ‘tap water’. It’s all bottled. Even worse, the more local cafes still use the smaller volume (8 0z) disposable plastic water cups (sealed and bottled at the factory). You can easily end up using three or four of those in one sitting.

Taking your own water bottle to a restaurant is not acceptable either. As per the request of Karin and Heather, I actually attempted doing so. I walked into a restaurant with a thermos of water. They didn’t really say anything, but looked at me very weirdly and frowned as if to say “what the hell are you doing?”. This is probably the first time someone’s done that with them. But I can assure you, if it becomes a regular thing, they will tell you to throw it out or leave it in the car. They do that at the hotel beaches in Aqaba (our port city at the southern tip of the kingdom, on the shores of the Red Sea). You can’t walk into a resort with your own drinks and onto the beach with your own water. It’s simple. You cut into their sales, and there’s no reason for them to allow that. It’s quite universal I’d say.

In simple and short, it is more difficult to sustain a reduced use of disposable water bottles when tap water in a glass is not an option at food and beverage outlets throughout the country, or even at home. But whenever I could, I filled up my re-usable bottle from a larger container at home.

Other interesting “Water” Initiatives in Jordan:

Most recent:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090526080702zzzz.nb/topstory.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view/2009_05_18_Jordan_plans__10b_seawater_desalination_plant/

Some Background on the issue:
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/greater_amman/

While I was in Jordan, I was also working on our DP2 – the water saving bathroom. Design. As I mentioned in class, this design is being improved and engineered for a new hotel that is currently under construction (just begun construction actually) on the shores of the Red Sea in Aqaba. And given the scarcity of the water problem in Jordan, this could have some significant impacts.

Recycling Plant Tour

Recycling Facility Visit

The San Francisco Recycling facility tour was quite interesting, and also very eye opening. Though we did not actually get to see how the materials are recycled, we were introduced to how they are collected, and then saw the process of sorting. I asked the gentlemen guiding the tour and giving the presentation how much time/energy is attributed to sorting, and the response was “close to 30%”. Now that’s a lot.

It got me thinking about potential improvements in the overall collecting and sorting part of the recycling process. As was explained to us, each household has three types of bins color-coded depending on what should go into them. Blue for plastics and aluminum, green for compostable stuff, and black for non-recyclables. Even with this scheme, sorting still takes a lot of time, energy and effort, and is also somewhat imperfect due to the human error involved in the first stage of sorting, as well as the complex materials that are often thrown together into one heap by those who can’t care less.

What if a late bin that automatically sorts materials (specifically bottles) into different compartments? Different types of plastics have different densities. Laser beams could be used to measure such densities and in turn sort. I’m not an expert here, but I’m guessing there are ways to do this:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0504/Spencer/Spencer-0504.html

On a small scale this might not be economic or feasible. But what if we improve the capacity of each bin? Bottles, in particular, take up lots of space. If there was a simple “crusher” that compressed bottles as they were disposed off, the bins can hold up to five if not more times their capacity in waste. That’ll save a lot of trucks, a lot of trips. Consider the time and energy saved there!

Just some ideas that crossed my mind as we toured the facility.