It’s still marketing, but it is a new idea to target people who care.
Clothing company Patagonia tells shoppers “Don’t buy this jacket” on Cyber Monday:
Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time – and leave a world inhabitable for our kids – we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else.
Unlike every other company out there, Patagonia appears to be less concerned about earning every last penny it can. Interesting.
Business logic of sustainability
from @EcoInteractive
But does it really make a large difference? I’ve looked at a care tag maybe twice, and I applaud the effort, but would like to see some real changes (not just from Levi’s of course…).
check your next pair of levi’s for “a care tag for our planet” with some practical tips on how to reduce the climate/environmental impact of caring for your jeans. these tags will also have a message that encourages consumers to donate their unwanted clothing.
the idea was created by ddbo west, goodwill of san francisco’s pro bono agency, after goodwill estimated that about 23.8 billion pounds of clothing ended up in US landfills each year. and on a side note: it’s really refreshing to hear that a huge agency like ddbo is doing pro bono work. that makes all of this soo much better, especially when you think about just how extensive this initiative really is.
Perfect example of how companies can show a small amount of accountability and make a large difference.
What happened to the climate change legislation? The short version.
Climate change legislation stalled in Congress. If Congress doesn’t pass something, EPA is ready to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. BUT the CAA was not set up to regulate these gases in such large quantities. But we’ll do it, even though we’d prefer Congress to step up, even if it means requiring EPA to write new regulations.
So now it’s a battle of industry trying to block the current greenhouse gas laws from going into effect. It’s gonna get messy.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), one of the architects of the Clean Air Act, often told his colleagues that if they did not reach an agreement, the climate debate would become a “glorious mess” of regulations and litigation. That is where things are headed now, said Eric Pooley, the deputy editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, during a Washington, D.C., panel discussion last week on the future of U.S. climate policy.
A glorious mess indeed. That’s right, everyone knows climate change is for real now, but politics and economics may be more important than the planet’s (and our) long-term survival. Good article describing the politics of it all in the NYTimes, via Greenwire.
President Obama addresses the nation Tues night from the Oval Office. NYTimes says: “His enemies were oil industry lobbyists and corrupt regulators, foreign energy suppliers and conservative policy makers, and a stubborn gushing well at the bottom of the sea. And ultimately, he was fighting his own powerlessness, as a president castigated for failing to stop the nation’s worst-ever oil spill tried to turn disaster into opportunity.”
Who pays for the oil cleanup? You.
Well, BP covers a piece of it, $75 mill to be exact. Another piece ($1 bill) comes from a portion of the gas tax, which you pay. The rest is from the government, which you pay. The entire direct and indirect costs are estimated at $10 billion. Ouch. Get the scoop at GOOD.
Putting a price on nature
Interesting stuff…
from The Economist:
Environmental valuations aim to solve a problem that troubles both economists and ecologists: the misallocation of resources. Take mangrove swamps. Over the past two decades around a third of the world’s mangrove swamps have been converted for human use, with many turned into valuable shrimp farms. In 2007 an economic study of such shrimp farms in Thailand showed that the commercial profits per hectare were $9,632. If that were the only factor, conversion would seem an excellent idea.
However, proper accounting shows that for each hectare government subsidies formed $8,412 of this figure and there were costs, too: $1,000 for pollution and $12,392 for losses to ecosystem services. These comprised damage to the supply of foods and medicines that people had taken from the forest, the loss of habitats for fish, and less buffering against storms.
Price fixing - Why it is important to put a price on nature - The Economist
Green Moving
Busy week (month/year) here. So probably just tossing up a few links and quickies. Here’s a rundown of some green moving companies that use reusable plastic containers and packing materials. Has anyone used a company like this or know someone who has? I’d like to hear some feedback…
Christmas Tree Dilemma?
I love this whole story. Guy who hates the holidays, landscaping business has dried up, looking for extra money, and he starts a potted Christmas tree rental business. It’s all so brilliant! While people all over the green blogosphere are debating real tree vs. fake tree vs. no tree vs. some other kind of tree… This guy comes up with a pretty decent, though labor-intensive, model. The trees are surprisingly expensive, since you are renting it and all, and the tree goes right back to the nursery when the holidays are over… I guess you’re paying for the labor.
Extra-credit points: The delivery trucks run on biodiesel; the trees are cared for by adults with disabilities; the drivers will pick up donations for Goodwill and used wrapping paper for recycling; and the Web site also sells eco-friendly, fair-trade ornaments.
Mr. Martin — whose landscape architecture work slowed quite a bit this year, given that most of it was in Dubai — gets delivery help from some laid-off architects he knows. “They are willing, for $15 an hour, to put on reindeer antlers and tell people ‘Merry Christmas.’ ”
