Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Green vs. Green

I checked the assignment this morning.  "Something green."

"Oh, this ought to be easy," I thought.

The first thing that popped into mind was money.  The classic green.  The greenback!  Later, in class, I stared at the ubiquitous green Starbucks logo on the cup next to my laptop as we learned about business law.  Maybe do something about Starbucks?  Money and Starbucks?  A $20 dollar bill wrapped around the cup instead of a cardboar cup holder?  I checked out projected long-term inflation rates on Trading Economics and estimated in what year it would cost $20.00 for the same $2.79 Americano that I enjoy today.  Somewhere about eighty years from now.  McKayla Maroney is not impressed.  Need a better idea.

I thought about taking a photo of something green.  My kid's trusty lunchbox.  The restaurant ("Green") down the street.  Bits of residue on the lip of theVitamix.  Nah.

Throughout the evening I meditated on green.  As I was doing dishes, it all started coming together.  It seems that when I think green, the two ideas most evoked are that of two seemingly opposing principles:  the notion of the almighty dollar and ideas related to the protection of our environment.

I thought to myself, "Why is it that these seem to, in my opinion, more often than not, come at the expense of one another?"  Visuals of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (an event that made my life miserable in the third grade for obvious reasons), DeepWater Horyzon, leaking gas lines and oil pipes, oil being purged into the waters off of Ecuador, chemicals spilling into West Virginian waters, and other disasters that came at the cost of the environment, stemming from a desire to turn a profit.  I thought about the rain forests during yesterday's free-association.  I looked it up.  Only 45% of them are left.  I hope whoever cut'em down made a sizable buck.  I hope it was worth it.  Time and time again irresponsible corporations do horrendous damage to the environment for short-term gains, either because of cutting corners on maintenance and execution, sometimes just due to outright negligence -- or worse -- because of knowingly wrong waste disposal measures.

Then I think of green.  Efforts to save the earth.  To protect our environment.  Anything to do with living in a more sustainable fashion: buying recycled materials, recycling your own waste, driving less, biking more, turning the water off while you brush your teeth, not using too much AC, insulating your walls, riding the bus, choosing paper or plastic.  All these things we little people do in an attempt to save the world on our small scale.  Actions on the individual level which are largely undone by systemic wrongs and a lack of corporate ethics.

Green versus green.  Will they always come at the expense of one another?  Or are things changing?  Speaking of green, here at the old Green and Gold I have been learning about all kinds of concepts.  Like LOHAS consumerism in Marketing.  Consumers that are conscious of Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability.  I'll pay a buck more for that cleanser because it's in a green bottle and vouches not to use harmful chemicals.  I'll use a cloth shopping bag to save a tree or maybe even save a plastic tree.  I'll buy these eyeglass frames because they are made out of 99% recycled goods.  Are we entering an age where green (eco) leads to more green (profit)?  Where being green is a form of competitive advantage?  Of market differentiation?  Or do LOHAS consumers make up too small a segment of the market to matter?  Is it too little too late?  Will it ever hit critical mass where this is the norm and not the exception?

I think of Kissick's Iron Triangle and our conversation in Quality today about cost versus quality.  One must come at the expense of another -- or does it?  Cutting costs do not lead to quality ... but improving quality can lead to reduced costs.   Can this work in the green vs. green conversation?  Can we ever get to a point where we are using green technologies that actually save us money?  Windpower, solar, and geothermal?  The costs have to be cheaper than relying on petroleum products in the long run -- if we can only get to that point.  Exxon has to let us first.  What would save the world and even corporations in cost would come at the ultimate expense to companies like Exxon.  We need to get to a point where we are just as worried about environmental costs as we are about conventional costs -- or even more so.

I've got a daughter, and I doubt that even she will live in a world that embraces green technology and prioritizes Earth over profit.  But I can always hope.

I miss the days when doing the dishes wasn't such a bummer.

1 comment: