I’m not 100% sure, but I am sure what makes an Urban Forest Master Plan bad. Very bad. And this wasting of 465 pages to say that saving forests is good is very, very bad. Check out the draft of the Halifax Regional Municipality Urban Forest Master Plan. It really does clock in at 465 pages! When this is printed and distributed to council, there goes another tree.
Category Archives: Going Green
Will Factories in a Box Revolutionize Sustainability Initiatives?
Gizmodo just ran a very interesting, and vey insightful article on how The Next Industrial Revolution Starts in this 20-foot Shipping Container about Re-Char and their Shop-in-a-Box that can perform rapid fabrication of steel parts by way of software and a CNC plasma torch. With the Shop-in-a-Box described in the article, Re-Char can produce 600 lids for Climate Kilns. This is a specialized lid-and-chimney integration that adapts a 55-gallon drum to produce the soil amendment biochar. (In Kenya, farmers burn sugarcane debris in an open field and release tons of carbon. A Climate Kiln controls the burn to produce the carbon-rich charcoal biochar that, mixed into soil, reduces the fertilizer requirements for crops by half.) This required the precision cutting of 18-gauge metal, which, in East Africa, leaves you the option of using a guy with an oxy-acetylene torch on the side of the highway or importing a full production run out of China, one full shipping container at a time. But for 30,000, Re-Char was able to produce a Shop-in-a-Box metal cutting and joining setup that could be run by two two people and produce 600 lids as a time, when needed, where needed (as the shop in a box can be moved to a new community when the needs of the current community have been fulfilled).
From a sustainability perspective, this is incredible. It’s lean, green, and completely against the routine. Actually, lean is an understatement. The power requirements are limited to what is needed to produce the lids. The energy required just to light, cool, etc. an average factory typically takes a 600 V feed … or two … or three. It’s green in that it can be powered by sustainable energy, including wind power, water power, or solar power – whatever is available. (Transformers come with the standard kit, along with generators for [natural] gas power for stability. Just add batteries and a UPS and it’s 100% green power most of the time.) And it’s completely against the routine. When the industrial revolution started, you can be that the robber barrons never predicted a moveable factory.
To date, the most (wide-spread) innovative use of containers has been data center modules, with Google a leader in this technology. (But this has been taken to the next level. For example, Green Data Center has designs for completely self-contained data center modules that you can drop anywhere. Just hook-up a power feed and an internet feed, and you’re literally good to go. (And since you can easily put a generator, or two, in a second container, you don’t even need a power feed. Just a natural gas feed, split between a couple of generators if you don’t have a sustainable power feed, for a primary feed.)
But we don’t have to stop at data centers and steel-part fabrication shops. Especially when we are talking about the developing world (which still includes much of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia). Do we really need to refine cane sugar 2,200 kgs at a time, for example? Or how about water purification? If we’re talking about a small community of a couple of hundred people, and the primary focus is clean drinking water, we don’t need to purify 100,000 liters a day! Purifying 1,000 liters would do nicely! Both processes would fit nicely in a container system. (After all, the sugar refinement process is not radically different from micro-brewing in terms of what is needed, and you could fit that nicely in a container too — although we can’t necessarily bring the same humanitarian arguments if we did.)
And when we’ve insured that everyone has the absolute necessities of clean air, clean water, and healthy food — we could ship them clothing factories in a box. It doesn’t make sense to sew shirts in sweat-shops on another continent just to ship them to small communities in Africa, or South America, or Asia, where the living wage is $2 a day or less. Considering the shipping costs alone, you couldn’t set the price at a point where you’d make many sales. Just ship a container to the town, train a few locals on the cloth-cutting production lines and find a few budding seamstresses to do the stiching, and produce the clothing where it will be sold. A zero-mile supply chain that emits zero-carbon and has zero shipping costs. And since you don’t have time-sensitive fashion industries in developing economies, you could even rotate it between a few small communities in the beginning while the consumer base and local economy built up. (Hopefully you’d also move the employees too if they were willing, as you could outfit another container as temporary living quarters without much cost or effort.)
I think the physical manifestation of the Solution-in-a-Box approach has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, distribution, and sustainability. And it’s not like we have a shortage of containers thanks to the outsourcing craze of the last fifteen years. They’re just sitting there waiting for a good use. And with all the super-panamax ships, and super-panamax capable ports, that we have at our disposal, we can get them from any continent to any other continent with ease, in bulk, and pretty close to where we want them. And then we just need a freightliner to haul them, and there’s no shortage of those.
Walmart Changed the World 50 Years Ago, But Did It Change For The Better?
I certainly agree with this recent Time Business article on 10 Ways Walmart Changed the World since the first Walmart store was opened in Rogers, Arkansas on July 2, 1962 (four thousand, four hundred stores ago). But I’m not sure all of the changes created by the world’s largest private employer are for the best.
Let’s start with this nice and succinct quote from the article:
| Walmart’s relentless drive for efficiency has bankrupted companies, put downward pressure on wages and upset a retail culture that some believe was less efficient but more personal and aesthetically pleasing. |
It may be the story of American capitalism at its finest, but is that the story it wants to bring to the rest of the world as it continues its rapid (or is that rampant) international expansion?
Now, while everyday low prices, supplier partnership, data driven management, supply chain connectivity, focus on decentralized management, and sustainability are good things; and while better selection is neither good nor bad in and of itself; the suburban sprawl it generates is bad for the environment, the relentless drive for efficiency is an accelerating factor in the outsourcing of American jobs and stagnant wages for North American employees is making us poor, and the creation of an overconsumptive (& disposable) culture will make it almost impossible for true sustainability to creep into our culture.
From a simplistic perspective, 6 changes for the better compared to 3 for the worse would appear to be a balance in Walmart’s favour, but it’s not how many good deeds and how many bad deeds, it’s the extent of the damage of the bad deeds that matters. And the extent is pretty bad when we look at things from a modern perspective.
First of all, as the article notes:
| The selection that Americans began to demand required bigger stores that could only be built on the outskirts of small towns or in the suburbs of large cities. |
Thanks largely to Walmart, we began to sprawl so much that your average big American city is now sprawling into the next big American city. That’s why we have Mega-Regions where it’s hard to determine where one city ends and the next begins. This is about as un-green as you can get. There’s a reason that San Francisco, Vancouver, and New York are the greenest cities in North America. (See Metropolis.) Why? For starters, the bigger the city, the more gas we have to use to get around because public transportation covers less and less. Plus, we need more resources to distribute power, water, communications, and everything else we need to live.
In the last 10 years, the US economy has last over 4 million blue-collar jobs, mainly as a result of manufacturing job losses, which is largely due to outsourcing. Outsourcing accelerated by Walmart in its pursuit of the lowest possible cost.
But this doesn’t pale in comparison to the creation of the overconsumptive and disposable culture it has created. Thanks to Walmart, we not only want to buy more, because some products have become so cheap, relatively speaking, that we don’t even think about buying them. And, more importantly, because some products have become so cheap, we don’t even think about repairing them when they break, even if they repairable. As a result, we now generate more waste per capita then one would have ever thought possible even a few decades ago. Without Walmart, something else might have come along, but the reality is that Walmart came along and Walmart did the damage.
Any differing opinions?
To Green Your Supply Chain, Start with Packaging
Just about everything these days is still overpackaged. From the software DVD that comes in a box big enough to hold 20 to 50 of them to the laundry detergent that takes a box at least twice as large as necessary as it is not concentrated to even the bottle you’re drinking your water from, everything is overpackaged. The water bottle is a good case in point. You’re probably thinking this is probably the most compact packaging there is as, at least in this case, it’s usually 95% to 98% full, in addition to being light. However, in many cases, better technology can reduce the plastic required by half!
For example, as pointed out in this recent article on a Chain Reaction in Materials Management & Distribution, Nestle Waters Canada has been able to reduce the amount of plastic required to make a half-litre bottle from 20g to 9.1g! That just tells you how much overpackaging there is in the average densely packaged product with poorly designed packaging. And considering how wasteful packaging is to begin with (even if its recycled, as a lot of energy goes into producing packaging, and a lot more into recycling it), this is bad.
Furthermore, not only will you green your supply chain if you save packaging (as you will be using less raw materials and energy), but you’ll be saving a lot of money, as you will be able to fit more product on a truck, or ship the same amount of product with less fuel (as it will weigh less).
The Triple Bottom Line will Soon Be The Norm
Is your Supply Management organization ready?
The Triple Bottom Line — which balances economic, environmental, and social performance in order to make a corporation more sustainable — is gaining more support by the day. As per this recent article over on Chief Executive on the Shareholder Push for the “Triple Bottom Line”, the percentage of social and environmental shareholder resolutions that garnered at least 30% shareholder support, rose from a mere 3% in 2005 to 26.6% in 2010. At the current rate that support is increasing, it’s just a few years before the majority of social and environmental shareholder resolutions exceed the 30% threshold and not many more years before the majority of well-formed social and environmental resolutions pass.
So, is your Supply Management organization ready?
Unless it is a true CSR leader, probably not. So where should it start? Near the end of 2008, CAPS published a Critical Issues Report that addressed the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework offered some suggestions for an organization that wanted to get started on the TBL path. Specifically, the report recommended that an organization:
- Smart small (but do something).
- Insure proposed strategies are aligned with overall corporate strategies and goals.
- Incorporate green into your purchasing and sourcing processes.
- Be proactive.
- Make sure you’re not just greenwashing.
- Form a cross-functional team to scale your efforts company wide.