Category Archives: Going Green

“China Defense” or “Chewbacca Defense”?

When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, we have the unfortunate situation in North America that many people, rather than tackle the problem head-on and doing something about it, are, instead, invoking the “China Defense”. The China defense goes something like this: There are other countries that are polluting the atmosphere much more than we are, like China, because they are still growing and emerging, especially from an industrial perspective. And they are not going to stop what they are doing.

The problem with this defense is that it makes about as much sense as the “Chewbacca Defense“. For those of you familiar with South Park, the creation of the mad minds of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the “Chewbacca Defense” is a legal defense designed to deliberately confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi (red herring). This defense, which (supposedly) satirizes Jonnie Cochran’s closing argument in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, starts off by stating that Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor, which isn’t true. Then it states that the statement does not make sense (which it doesn’t). Then it connects the senselessness of this statement to the actual legal case, to imply that the legal case is equally senseless.

Confused? Good. Because you’d have to be to fall for the “China Defense” when you consider, as pointed out in this great HBR blog post on ‘the fallacy of the “China Defense”‘, the following:

1. China is doing much more than we are to reduce carbon emissions.

  • China introduced a 10-year 5 Trillion Yuan alternative energy plan in 2010
  • In August 2012, it announced it would spend over 2.3 Trillion Yuan in the next 3.5 years to cut pollution
  • In August 2012, it announced it would reach 21 GW in solar power capacity by 2015
  • As of January 2013, Wind is the #3 source of energy in China
  • It just announced the implementation of a carbon tax

2. Science doesn’t care

We have to decarbonize at the rapid rate of 5% less carbon per dollar of GDP annually until 2050, or the catastrophic effects of global warming will make us long for the days when Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina were the worst we had to deal with (and the cost of catastrophes was under 100 Billion).

3. Not only is going green good, but it will put more green into your pockets than you can imagine.

The truth of the matter is that the clean economy will be a multi-trillion dollar market. Embracing the clean economy could go a long way to helping the U.S. manage it’s public debt!

So make sure to do your best to minimize carbon in your supply chain.

Blue and Brown Make Dark Brown

Not Green! Someone over on Supply Chain Digital either needs a refresher course on the visible spectrum, or, if a discussion of electromagnetic radiation is too difficult for them, a kid’s paint set. What am I referring to? This recent article over on Supply Chain digital on how “UPS and USPS Begin Partnership to Reduce Emissions”.

I really like this idea in theory, but in practice, I wonder if it’s really going to reduce emissions or just create a lot of hot air.

Here’s the quandary. If the average UPS and USPS truck is going out half empty, than this is going to reduce the number of trucks on the road, and it’s a good idea. If the average UPS and USPS truck is going out over half fill, USPS will now need two trucks and the emissions will just be shifted from UPS to USPS. The other issue is that the packages have to get from the USPS network to the UPS network. How closely are the networks synced? Not only does a package now have to go through location B to get to C from location A, which means that UPS won’t be able to retire may trucks (as it still has to get the packages to USPS), but if A to B to C is twice as long as A to C, and this is the case for a majority of packages, are emissions really saved?

Also, with respect to the second part of the partnership, will the USPS be able to redesign its network to efficiently take advantage of UPS’ efficient global distribution capabilities? If USPS can, this will be great because UPS is much more efficiently structured to get a package to the right country given its focus. But if USPS can’t, it’s more hot air.

And all hot air does is scorch the earth, and turn it dark brown.

I hope for the best, but what’s the real incentive for these two companies to cooperate to the level necessary to really make a difference?

A Starter’s Guide to Zero Waste

A recent article (“if gm can do it: a starters guide to zero waste”) over on ThomasNet pointed out how General Motors, which has made a high-profile commitment to zero waste, has turned more than half of its manufacturing plants into landfill-free facilities. For a company as big as GM, manufacturing a wide-range of products, that’s impressive. (As is the fact that its zero-waste best practices have helped it turn its own waste byproducts into a 1 Billion per year revenue generator.)

If GM can do it, you can to. How? Start by following the 10 steps to zero-waste as outlined in A Starter’s Guide to Zero Waste. And pay particular attention to these steps:

  • Commit to the Triple Bottom Line
    In other words, adopt social, environmental, and economic performance standards and pursue them unwaveringly.
  • Adopt the Precautionary Principle
    Before committing to any product or service, audit the full life-cycle for the presence of anything that will be wasteful or toxic. If there is waste, figure out if it can be eliminated before the product or service is committed to. If there are toxic (by) products, they have to be eliminated (or substituted with non-toxic products), or the product (or service) is a no-go.
  • Manage Products and Packaging Responsibly
    You, your suppliers, and their suppliers need to take ‘financial or physical responsibility for all of the products and packaging’ produced and figure out how you reduce, reuse, or recycle at every step of the product and service life-cycle.
  • Use Economic Incentives
    Simply put, they work.

Andy, most importantly,

Wow! Charbroiled Burgers More Environmentally Unfriendly than Clean-Diesel Trucks!

I have to admit that I was a little shocked when I came across this article on DC Velocity that referenced recent research from the University of California-Riverside that resulted in a study which found “charbroiled burgers produce more particulates than clean-diesel trucks” (Jan 26, 2012).

Specifically, if a clean-diesel 18-wheeler truck is burning ultra-low sulfer diesel fuel, it would have to travel 143 miles on the freeway to send up the same mass of particulates as a single charbroiled hamburger patty. As per this article on WSAZ News on “new california study finds more particulate emissions from charbroiled burgers than diesel trucks”, clean diesel technology is really cleaning up the trucking industry. Recent research from North Carolina State University demonstrated that trucks in compliance with newer standards showed a 98% decrease in NOx and a 94% reduction in particulate matter emissions.

The study, summarized on UCR Today, also found that commercial cooking is the second-largest source of particulate matter in the South Coast Air Basin. Looks like we need to start installing clean cooking technology now!

Anyway, this gives you something to think about that before your next trip to Hardee’s, for example.

Five Precepts for Greening the Supply Chain

A recent post over on the Kenco Blog on “Best Practices for Greening the Supply Chain” contained five precepts for making your supply chain greener that should be shared far and wide. They are:

  • Realize the Contribution of Efficiency
    Part of green is being lean. Lean minimizes waste. Waste costs money. So when you are efficient, you minimize costs, which, all other things being equal, maximizes profit. As SI has said many times before, green not only makes you sustainable, but it increases the green you have in the bank.
  • Assess the Life Cycle Impact of Products
    When evaluating the sustainability of a product, you have to look beyond the raw materials (and their creation/extraction) and production, evaluate (intended) use, and think about disposal. As SI has noted before, the product should be designed for recycling (and raw material recovery) and at the very least minimize, if not eliminate, waste and landfill requirements.
  • Recognize Green Products & Services
    When presented with multiple product and service alternatives, the ability to recognize those that are naturally sustainable is key to embedding sustainability in your organization.
  • Minimize Resource & Energy Use and Carbon Impact
    Pay careful attention to the amount of resources required, the amount of energy required, and the amount of carbon produced. A truly green process utilizes renewable resources, renewable energy, and is carbon neutral. That may not always be possible, but that is the end goal.
  • Give Back to Society
    While it can be argued that a company can be sustainable without being charitable, the goal of sustainability is to sustain both the company and the society that the company is trying to sell its products and services to. Thus, as the article suggests, a company should at least make some effort to display corporate leadership and engage the community and, preferably, give time and resources to sustainable causes in the community.

Great advice for sustainable companies to live by.