The Distance Project

T Boone Pickens, Wind Power, And National Security.

Posted on July 14th, 2008 by Zach.
Categories: General, Renewable Energy, Systems of the World, Industry.

Does this look like the traditional face of an environmentalist? Take a look at this interview with T. Boone Pickens about why he is investing in Wind Power in West Texas:

Pickens Article on Investing in Wind

The concept of viewing our dependence on foreign oil as a historically massive transfer of wealth is excellent. It allows people on every side of the energy debate to frame it in a way that shows what is critically important about our dependence on oil.

I am a fan of locally produced energy. Even when we mine and burn coal, at least as a country we see the impact on our soil. Divorcing ourselves from our consumption (and consumption of anything, not just oil) is one of the first mistakes we need to rectify, and in a hurry.
I am a firm believer that once you frame consumption, reduction becomes a set of quantifiable goals. If you don’t have that frame, you have no place to start.

Now I am not naive enough to think that a lifelong oil guy like T. Boone Pickens is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. Like all of us he has larger motives - in his case mainly profit motives. In fact I would put money on the fact that this story is way more complicated than it seems.

Pickens has been taking advantage the odd regulations regarding drilling in Texas and is buying up land above a set of aquifers. So along with lobbying himself into a Water Authority and distributing water into the Dallas metropolitan area, I have no doubt that wind generated electricity can be easily transmitted down those same pipe lanes.

Eminent Domain is a wonderful concept.

If it turns out that there is Natural Gas on his land, then you can see the whole plan come together - one $2 billion pipeline, three critical services.
There is big money in this thing for Pickens, and all in all it is pretty brilliant if totally shady.

But in the end, I sit here and ask myself; “Do I Care?” And the answer is no. From the outset of embarking on this journey, I told myself that I didn’t care why people came to the table as long as they came. Well Pickens, came to the table because he saw huge money in wind power. I may not personally love all of his reasons, but his reasons frame the problems in ways many other people can identify with. And for that I am excited to welcome an old Oil Wildcatter to the party.

Let’s talk more about the transfer of wealth, it is a great point and one that I never would have conceived of if not for Pickens’ approach. It is simple and straight forward, and it matters.
Here is the You Tube explanation of the plan.

Here is the full website: www.pickensplan.com

Judge for yourself.

2 comments.

Stealing Your Waste Oil

Posted on June 26th, 2008 by Zach.
Categories: General, Sustainability, Systems of the World.

Can someone tell me if this is a good or bad thing?
There has been a rise in the theft of old cooking oil from restaurants according to the New York Times piece of a little while ago. So this is where we’re at is it - The stealing of waste stream material?

This is one of those times when the glass is half full or half empty. You know, those tests that are supposed to tell you whether you’re an optimist or a pessimist depending upon how you view a situation?

A pessimist would look at this filet-o-fish filled oil theft as disasterous. Fuel prices are rising at epic proportion making the waste stream oil look like a good option for fuel. They would say a dark storm approaches - home heating oil is astoundingly expensive and this kind of theft of basic materials is only the beginning of a downward spiral for the country. Fire and brimstone I tell ya.

An optimist sees the better angels of the situation. Imagine that, a waste stream being so coveted that it is even WORTH stealing. That hasn’t happened in a long, long time in this country. Not since one of the lesser known Adams brothers - not John Quincy - was indicted in that great cow manure scandal of the early 1800’s.

No, an optimist would say that rising fuel costs will force us to address unsustainable approaches to everyday life. That it is past time we dealt with these sorts of systems. That this is the rise of small cars, mass transit, and a return to local economies.

And really, who doesn’t want al of those things, I know I do. But big transitions hit people with the least amount of financial stability first, and that makes this transition pretty scary for many.

So I guess I am splitting the distance? Short term pain that is ultimately good for as all.

What we need is good leadership, that people believe in, and that can usher the country through the pain that is coming. Enough bickering, big things are happening around us - do I really care about this political “gotcha” crap that the campaigns are playing.

One other note:  Let me know when people start stealing the Dunkin Donuts oil to restrain and cook with. That’s when you know we are in serious trouble and it is time to fortify the house World War Z style.
Until then, it is time for all of us to put in some work.

0 comments.

Managing The Clock

Posted on March 14th, 2008 by Zach.
Categories: General, Renewable Energy, Systems of the World.

Something special happens this time of year - the days are long, the air is warm, and of course that happiest of days, the “Spring Ahead” day hits. As far as I am concerned Spring Ahead day should be a national holiday. There is nothing like the feeling of that first time you get out of work and still have 3 hours of daylight to run around in. Oh happy day!

Yearly though my happiness is slightly muted by the raft of articles like this one in the Wall Street Journal, showing that Daylight Savings Time wastes energy.

Noooooooo! See this is why the world has such a negative opinion of environmental causes, they take away all our fun.

Damn you Indiana and your crystal clear data. If ever there was a fight that was worth creating more renewable energy for, this is it. I think I will start a “Save Daylight Savings” cause right now. In fact, what I really want is to never have Fall Back day. That day sucks.

Time and clocks play such huge role in how we consume energy, how we plan for usage in the future, and what it causes the average user. Another example that just popped up today is in the concept of the Plug-In hybrid.

There has been a lot of noise about the Plug-In Hybrid recently and with justification - the average Mile-Per-Gallon that some of the modified Prius’ (is this the plural of Prius? Prii, anyone?) are getting is straight up astounding.

But I always look at the over-taxed grid in this country, and think “Where are all these cars going to get plugged in?” Oak Ridge Labs had the answer in this study identifying the impact a move to Plug-Ins would have on current infrasturture as well as future growth.

Again it comes down to clock management. ORNL sees minimal impact of the Plug-In as long as they charge at certain off-peak hours of the day. They see a large need to increase production if charging happens during peak times.

If the energy infrastructure increase is rooted in a basket of renewable energy technologies, then no problem. In that case we are trading the combustion car for clean energy and I am down with that. If the increased electrical need is fulfilled by the construction of new fossil based power plants then welcome my friend - welcome to the age of the coal-fired automobile.

So maybe we could start with a timer for Plug-In charging? Yeah that would be good.

Ah the power of the clock. From its usage in the industrial revolution to regulate work, to our current issues of electrical consumption, the clock is seminal to the management so many facets of our lives.

I find it fascinating and annoying simultaneously. Have to go now- Almost 5:00 and spring is in the air.

0 comments.

Junk Mail Sucks. CatalogChoice Rules.

Posted on December 13th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: General, Sustainability, Systems of the World.

What is up with junk mail this year?

It seems worse than ever before - especially around the holidays. At my house, because the people upstairs have been there since 1962, we must get 35 catalogs a day during the holidays and probably 15 - 20 a day any other time. The worst part is, NONE of them get used. We literally pull them out of the mail basket and toss them straight into the recycling bin - it totally sucks.

Over the last year or so I have been looking for some sort of system to deal with this. There are a bunch of paid services which, for a monthly fee, will continually remove you from lists, but somehow this is annoying to me. Why should I have to pay to ensure I won’t get something I never wanted in the first place. It is these types of systems (and double negative sentences) in the world that drive me most crazy.

19 Billion catalogs are mailed every year. No I didn’t stutter, that is billion with a “b”. If my house is any indication, exactly 12 of those total catalogs are actually useful.

And while I am on the subject..WHY DOES THIS WORK !?! I don’t get it, it is just like spam - who is clicking on all the Russian Brides, Viagra, and Penis Enlargement emails and saying to themselves; “I sure am getting a good deal!”, I mean seriously who is that?

Hmm…actually looking at that list, I see a clear consumer profile emerging. That one lonely guy is ruining it for the rest of us - he must be found and stopped.

Before I get all hopped up on a rant longer than the average blog attention span, let me move on to the solution. Recently a coalition of enviro groups put together a catalog list, somewhat like the “Do Not Call” list for phones.

Check out CatalogChoice.org. Simply enter in the catalog name and your customer number. Then sit back and watch the mail become manageable. It is freaking great, and CatalogChoice is my new hero.

FYI, it does take a while to process the unsubscribes, so don’t get discouraged if you still get the catalogs for a while - some take up to 10 weeks to take you off the list.

It is still totally annoying to me that I have to go in and get rid of something I never wanted, but at least someone is providing me with a solution. Plus, I have found that once you get into the thing, it is totally addictive to reduce all this crap from your mail.

Love it.

Big up to JR for reminding me to post this.

0 comments.

Why I Love ZipCar, by Zach L.

Posted on November 16th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World, Urban Planning.

This title sounds like a 4th grade paper I wrote once. I was a good writer in 4th grade, my paper on the Tyrannosaurus Rex was Pulitzer worthy. Perhaps the highlight of my writing career - sadly it was all downhill from there.  4th grade talent notwithstanding, the ZipCar model really is cool.

If you haven’t yet, check out the concept of CarSharing. It is a fascinating model of managing the last mile (always the hardest piece) of public transportation systems. What is always frustrating about Public Transportation in this country is that often you are too far away for the train or bus stop. Getting to your final destination is expensive and difficult.

Parking Zipcars at subway, train, and bus stations solves this problem.  You still have the flexibility to go exactly where you need to, but you didn’t have to battle highway traffic to do it.  Plus CarShare programs  cover insurance and  the fuel for the time you use the car. Love this concept and I hope it spreads all over the country.  Recently the two biggies in this space; ZipCar and FlexCar announced that they will merge in the coming year.  This has to be the biggest no-brainer since XM and Sirius.  Oh right, those two still haven’t managed to figure out the merging process.

We support CarShare as a a key piece of the puzzle and this summer we signed a partnership deal with Zipcar to give all their members a discount on Reware products.  For us there is an interesting cross marketing concept here.  ZipCar and Reware both have been started with the hope that they will make changes to the system, while providing their customers a new service that they use.  Making change and making money. What could be better from a work standpoint?

It seems like there are more and more companies trying to figure out this model, and I envision us partnering more and more often. It makes sense because the customer base is so similar. For the most part the target audience is very mainstream. They live normal lives, they are not out on a commune weaving their own shoes .  But they see the world changing, they see their lives as impactful and if they can spend money with companies that make them feel like their actions are part of the solution, they are pleased.

Call it the Whole Foods model.  I have to go to the grocery store anyway,  why not go to the one that is espousing the values that I want in my life?

There is a growing lifestyle concept that I feel like more and more people are trying to figure out. ZipCar and the other car sharing services fit right into this niche.

0 comments.

Train travel is fun.

Posted on November 2nd, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World, Urban Planning.

I love trains. I love sitting here watching the world go by. I find myself more productive, more creative, more relaxed. I think it is the best way to travel.

For the most part trains could be better in this country. But Amtrak also gets a bad rap. They are working under impossible conditions politically for trains - basically no mandate whatsoever, and trying to service and impossibly vast country. I read recently that the Eastern corrdior trains (Boston to Washington DC) pay for much of the rest of the Amtrak system.

This is about to change - Amtrak recently received a large influx of cash from the federal government, effectively doubling its budget I believe. And it comes at just in time. The roadways of this country exist on a knife’s edge every morning and evening, especially around major metropolitan areas. Anyone who has been on Interstate 95 in the past couple of years will tell you that all it takes is a slight problem to create vast delays.

What if it transitioned to a for profit system? Free market folks claim that prices would go down as services went to compete for your business. I am not entirely convinced of this, but it would be an interesting concept.

First and formost for this to happen though, the US would have to realize the value and potential of rail systems to move people and product around the country. They would have to value it the way we value our roads.

Imagine what the price of a car would be if the Automobile industry had to pay to the upkeep of all the roads. Or maybe it would be on the Oil compaines to keep it up. Imagine the price of gas! Instead road work comes straight out of federal, state, and local taxes. We have essentially deemed upkeep of the roadways critical to our economic well being. And they are, you will get no argument from me on that front. Yet, highways around the country have hit critical mass. Train systems can move massive amounts of people and product on relativley reliable schedules for a 10th of the energy consumption.

SO we should be investing in track maintenance. As a society we should deem track infrastructure critical to urban development. It should at least return to the same level of importance as our highway system.

Just for a little G-Whiz, check out some of the new MagLev train systems and how they work. SO cool.

0 comments.

The Power of Hybrids

Posted on October 10th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World.

The other night I was at dinner and found myself in discussion with someone unimpressed by the Hybrid car revolution. Fair point from the outside I suppose, but I thought it was worth a little bit of time here to show why hybrids matter.

When it comes to cars, one of the first thing people look at is gas mileage and on that front most of the Hybrids are pretty good, if not mind blowing - somewhere between 30 and 50 mpg depending on the size of the engine. This is better than the national average, but for a regular Civic driver or someone who drives a TDI from Volkswagen, it is not enough to pony up the extra bucks.

Fuel efficiency is a big deal obviously and I don’t want to devalue how important it is in the larger equation. Energy conservation is the single most important challenge facing the U.S. Vehicles are no different, and hybrid technology is addressing this as the technology matures. 

In terms of the impact of hybrid technology though, fuel efficiency is only part of the equation, and I would argue the smaller of the two. What really matters are the emissions.

In traditional cars and trucks a large majority of emissions are produced either when the vehicle is at idle, or moving at slow speeds. Stop-and-go traffic for example, is an emissions nightmare. So much so that cities see significant reduction of pollution when they use more timed traffic lights systems. By reducing the number of times cars have to stop for lights, the pollution levels are lower.

Because a hybrid vehicles operates on an electric motor during these critical times (0 -15 mph), the emissions are reduced by a large factor. The numbers are actually staggering: around 80% of the total emissions in a three mile drive are created during the first mile.

To put the impact of this into perspective next time you are stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic that forces you to slow down around 10 - 15 miles an hour, take a look around you and imagine every one of the cars putting out zero emissions. In every major urban area these days, this is a daily occurrence at rush hour.

Idling my not seem like a big deal to the average person, but it is. According to a Washington State University Study, trucks and buses burn in the neighborhood of 840 million of gallons of diesel a year JUST IDLING! Combine that with the emissions quotient and the numbers for trucks are just plain scary.

Trucks at idle, cars in traffic, imagine if every one of those vehicles were producing zero emissions. Hybrid system are a critical answer to these issues, and that is why they matter now.

They matter for future innovation as well. Emerging technologies like plugin hybrid systems up the electric speeds from 0-15 mph to actual cruising speeds - spurts of 50+ mph. The systems are only going to get better.

Most importantly, hybrid systems separate the energy production from the motor. In current examples like the Prius, a gas engine charges batteries which then run an electric motor. At high speeds the combustion engine kicks in as well, but increasingly the electric motor takes the load with the gas engine used for producing electricity.

Future systems will fully divorce the engine from the motor. This will enable a wide variety of energy production sources to be used in cars - hydrogen fuelcells, biofuels, sterling engines, etc. And that kind of flexibility is where innovation will continue develop.

A couple of facts:

• The transportation sector generates 27 percent of U.S. GHG emissions

• There are 200 million registered vehicles in the U.S.,  almost one per person.

• The average U.S. car each consumes 600 Gallons each year.

• 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide is emitted from one U.S. car each year.

• U.S. cars and light trucks traveled 2.7 trillion miles in 2004. That’s the equivalent of taking 10 million trips to the moon.

• Emissions for the first km are 80% of total emissions for the 4km journey.

• The U.S. produces 45% Percent of the world’s automotive carbon dioxide emissions.

• The Toyota Prius reduces normalized tailpipe emissions by up to 90% and greenhouse gas emissions by around 50%.

• The City of Ottawa estimates that reducing idling by only 5 minutes per day in all City vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 384 tonnes and save $80,000 in fuel costs across the fleet.  5 minutes!

         Sources: pewclimate.org, Evironmental Defense, University of Bath (UK), City of Ottawa

0 comments.

Entry Points: Why Live Earth Mattered.

Posted on July 18th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World, Pop-Culture.

I managed to watch a fair amount of the Live Earth extravaganza, here are some quick thoughts:

- Maybe time has marched on, but I didn’t get the same cultural buzz off the concert that the African Relief shows did in the 80’s. Not sure why, but the whole thing felt a little hollow. (Except for Wembley, see point 3)

- The transition sequences, little movies, and statistics were awesome. Not sure who did all of them, but they rule. They felt like they had tangible significance. Loved it.

- It was so obvious how the venue setup matters. Giant stadium seemed energyless for most the most part. The floor area all had seats and they were FAR from the stage. In contrast Wembley looked so impressive. It had huge energy and just seemed crazy cool. Even the smaller venues seemed to work better than Giant Stadium - Brazil looked so fun. But then a free concert on the beach in Rio? How is this not fun?

- Foo Fighters ripped it up. Those guys put on the best set of the concert - by far.

- Bob Geldoff is grumpy someone stole his idea. Check this bit from Treehugger. Love that picture. When did he last sleep?

Ah Live Earth - concerts for the planet. Such an easily ridiculed concept, with such huge implications for the future.

It’s just hard. Hard to watch Madonna tell me that it is time to pay attention to the planet. It has the feel of being chastised by your Mom for not cleaning your room. You know you probably should listen, but this Xbox…is just…sucking…your attention…away…

Time Magazine has a good piece on the concerts - both the good and the bad. An interesting argument comes up in the piece, one that is growing I think. It’s surmised by this quote of Arctic Monkeys’ drummer Matt Helder: “We’re using enough power for ten houses just for lighting,” Arctic Monkeys’ drummer Matt Helder told AFP. “It’d be a bit hypocritical [if we played].”

Hmmm, I wonder if they feel hypocritical every time they play, or just this particular time when highlighting climate change. Sorry I digressed there.

The truth is he’s right. In some ways it would be best if this concert didn’t go on. Massive reduction, conservation and efficiency are the greatest sources of potential energy in the world - especially in the US. Reducing our consumption - less travel, fewer products purchased, reduced electricity use - these things would make the planet we live in fundamentally better.

I started wondering why this quote bugged me so much. I realized it’s because the issue hits so close to home. We produce a product that we call “green”. The Juice Bag incorporates a solar panel for charging your phone, iPod, etc. In our ES line we source recycled fabrics for the bags. But like the Live Earth concert, it is partly true that the world would be less impacted if we didn’t design, produce, or ship a Juice Bag to you.

The flaw in this logic is that as a society we are not consuming less. Concerts for entertainment go on - the Arctic Monkeys will tour all over the world, come climate change or not. People camp out for the “Must Have” gadgets like the iPhone. I drove to work today. These are the realities of our world. These are the systems we live in.

It’s what we have, and while it is nice to dream of consumption disappearing into thin air, the reality is that our consumption is getting worse not better.

So the question is how do you begin to make that transition from where we are, to where we want to be? To a less consumptive place.
I think it begins with systems we use every day. Around Reware we dream of the day where every bag bought is made from recycled materials. Where the process Nau is using is the norm in clothing manufacturing. That it would be expected by the consumer. Sure we would still be buying too many bags as a society, but we will have begun the transition to reduction.

Recycled fabrics and solar panels create what we like to think of as an entry point for consumers to expect this type of thing from their products. We are still buying too much, but we have at least started to think about our system. This sets the stage for the next set of changes we have to make. Recently the New York Times had a good piece looking at this concept.

The crucial point, I think, is at the end of the article. Entry points (done well) really work in this context of transition. Central to the argument, there are a set of social marketing studies that show people who are consuming organic products, are attempting to incorporate other climate mitigation strategies into their daily lives. I can’t find a link to the one I was reading, if anyone has one of these studies send it my way and I will post it.

From our own experiences (and I may have used this anecdote before); we once sold a Juice Bag at a solar show in Arizona. The guy came back the next day and said “This thing works great for my phone, do you think I could power my house like this?” That is a good day for us, and a successful entry point into sustainability through consumer goods.

Entry Point theory is a tricky marketing business though. EPs have to be easily accessible to a wide market regardless of politics, socio-economics, or geographic location. They have to make transition strategies fun and engaging for people who live busy lives. Entry points have to create the same feel for consumers that the iPhone has - A sense of belonging, of identity, of excitement, in product - a hard thing to create in any context. If only we could get Apple on board with some of the eco-theory…

But, this is where pop-culture can be such a powerful tool. And this is where Live Earth matters. Now it wasn’t perfect, some of the artists were annoying and self rightous, but when is that not true? For one day the words “climate change” were on millions of peoples collective minds - whether they liked the idea, or hated it. Climate Change was everywhere. And that is an amazing feet. Amazing.

Like Reware, like Wholefoods, like the Prius, the concert had its impact on the environment that was not ideal. The critical debate should not center around this, the debate should be more around Bob Geldoff’s grumpiness. Did the concert create a successful entry point for people wanting to find out more about sustainability, or did it fail to capture the imagination?

Now that is a question which matters..

0 comments.

Revenge of the Packaging Vent A Thon - From Left Field.

Posted on July 6th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: General, Systems of the World.

This is a slightly different vent about packaging, but have you ever noticed how hard it is to come out of a “to-go” food situation without three bags, fifteen forks, enough napkins to get mustard off all the mouths in Rhode Island, the sandwich you ordered wrapped in four layers of paper, and various coupons for future use?

Every time I go out to grab lunch from the office these days I come away with four pounds of packaging - to say nothing of the places that pack all of the above into a lovely Styrofoam box. So sweet, I will be throwing that away in about 3 seconds…

But this is not the messed up part, what concerns me most is that when I tell them I don’t want the (bag, napkins, silverware, etc) I feel guilty, like they might feel insulted somehow.

What is that about! Holy crap I have packaging guilt!

This is the weirdest reaction to potential trash I can imagine. Do I really feel they might be insulted? Really?

Whatever - most of the folks behind the counter just look confused. They have just put together about 10,000 sandwiches and packaged them in a perfect system of fluidity. And here I come screwing up the process: He really doesn’t want the napkins? Maybe I will give them to him anyway, just in case. They are as screwed up as I am at that moment.

At least we are in this thing together.

I know, I know, I should be putting last nights stir fry in Tupperware and bringing it from home - Saving money, packaging, and being super enviro.

It doesn’t happen.

First off, I live alone and rarely cook in general. In my situation I actually think cooking is more consumptive (Spoiler Alert: Here comes a rationale for my own behavior, I bet most of you can hardly wait). When I buy vegetables, I end up throwing half of them out as they slowly rot in my fridge. Also I definitely am using less packaging in my current state than buying food and cooking. I just am; being recycling obsessed, I basically have to take out the trash at home every two weeks - and that is usually a small shopping bag sized situation.

And even after that justification, the reality is that I hate eating leftovers at lunchtime - maybe more than Josh Dorfman hates recycling. Also, if I don’t get out of the office at lunch - interact with a couple of people, maybe walk to the river near my office for a second - I lose it.

Does anyone else feel bad not taking the packaging, or am I the only stupid kid doing this? I have no solution for any of this, I am just looking for outside validation.

Maybe I can bring my own plate and the restaurants can just load up the meal. How would that be? You want to see confused? Show up with your own plate at your favorite to-go food option.

While we are on this subject there is a new phenomenon in my nieghborhood in takeout (Again, don’t send me any email about my eating behaviors, I know they are messed up, I don’t need reminding). Many of the foods that used to come in the Styrofoam, now come in a slightly cheaper, but still solid version of Tupperware. At first I was very excited by this change, deeming it a fairly promising step. It has successfully supplied me with all the food storage vessels I could possibly want in my life. This must be killing Glad, RubberMaid, and anyone else who makes this stuff.

But now I am on the fence realizing that all this stuff still gets thrown away in most circumstances. I kind of hope it can be recycled, but because I use mine all the time and don’t throw it away, I am not actually sure this is true.

So do you use yours, or does it get chucked just like the white foam things? Do people recycle it? What up with this?

…And end rant.

0 comments.

The Matrix - Designing a Good Consumer Filter

Posted on May 14th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World, Industry.

When Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) first started to grow there was inherent challenge that had to be overcome: If a company like Nike was recycling their shoes and a significant leader in waste reduction, but employed 10 year olds for 20 cents a day, were they an acceptable investment? Some people would say; “Yes, the environment is all that matters and Nike is doing a good job innovating on that level.” Others would say; “No, how can you claim to invest in a socially responsible way if you are abusing the labor force that is making the product?” To their credit Nike has made progress on their labor practices over the years, but the reality of these reactions is that both are correct and this ended up being a major barrier for SRI breaking into the mainstream.

The solution that was developed over a number of years was really quite ingenious in a free market sort of way - let the consumer decide what matters. SRI managers have created issue based filters for investing. Care about the environment? Here is a list of companies that are acceptable using that filter. Is labor your issue? There is a filter that fits. In many cases the filters have become even more nuanced allowing consumers to associate different “weights” to each issue based on their own priorities. Combine that with more traditional investing filters (Risk analysis, Diversification, Sector investing, etc.) and you have a very smart approach to the investment process.

This has been incredibly successful, and we have watched SRI fund management grow to exponentially as a result.

I bring this up because Reware is struggling with similar issues as a company. We like to think that we are part of a shift in product creation. We try to integrate concepts that matter in the world - local production, low toxicity, recycled material science, a little environmentalism, minimal packaging, and so on. Basically with every product, we would want a narrative that falls within our vision of next gen product design. This is what we believe is good for the world, and we know this is where the money is. We are after all in in this thing both to change the world and make money, pro-market force peeps that we are.

The annoying thing about being what’s next, is that the systems of the world are conspiring against you pretty much at every turn. As a small company we don’t have the resources to force our vendors to adjust to our needs. And this is a hard thing, something that I am sure Patagonia struggled with in the early days, that Nau is going through, and Arbor Sports has had to deal with. Everyone trying to adjust the status quo in product design runs into these systems like a brick wall.

A tangible example:

Right now we make three lines of solar bag. Our favorite is the ES line. With three styles (Daypack, Messenger, and Backpack) and three or four colors, we sew these bags in Texas. The quality is second to none and that is always an important factor. Plus the best part of this line is the fact that all the fabrics are made from recycled soda bottles. It is a bag that fits all of our goals - Production in the US, recylced fabrics, solar on the front to charge to gizmos - pretty great right?

Thank you, I will accept your humanitarian award, but please hold the applause.

A down side to this fabric is that it is not currently in wide distribution. What this means is that there is a limited supply in the marketplace, production keeps shifting from one factory to another, and the low toxicity dyes and process pieces don’t always work quite right. The company we work with to sew the bags struggles because they too are doing something that has never really been done and these barriers screw up production. This is a problem because often we cannot rely of a steady stream of bags. We then cannot offer these bags to larger clients because we worry we will not be able to supply them. I feel my ulcer flaring up just writing about it.

So problem #1: Production of the environmental fabrics is amazing, cool to be a part of, but sometimes unreliable.

The answer for us has been to use a more traditional system of sewing with a great company in North Carolina. Still in the U.S., but made for the most part from traditional Denier or Ballistic nylon. Still with the solar. So we have lost the recycled fabric piece with this style (we are experimenting with some organic fabrics), but gained reliability of production. This gives us the ability to sell more widely and have more faith that we can deliver. Plus making in the US we have a 4 week turn around for the most part, meaning that our response to the market is fast. Really fast. Speed and reliability comes at a price though and it is a steep one. The bag we sew in NC we could probably make in China for a 1/5 the price. That is a huge price discrepancy and effects the end cost to the consumer as well as our bottom line.

Problem #2: North Carolina is expensive

Anyone who manufactures overseas will tell you that product development is a headache - especially if you are a small company. The reality is, China is just far away and that leads to complications. No offense to Mr. Friedman, whose picture of the flat world is a good one, but in my experience it not so much seamless as navigating the seams themselves. You basically need a person on-site that you know and can communicate effectively with. Or you need to go yourself, and often. But there are huge benefits - the low costs are the primary one. This may seem cold because we all like to think that we would pay more for our stuff. The reality is that we will not. We have an idea about what things will cost and as consumers, we will not deviate from that. This is why China is booming, and industries like sewing are disappearing for the US. It just is what it is, and there is no avoiding it.

Problem #3: Overseas production is complicated for small companies. It has long lead times per order. We have to worry about labor conditions, and environmental usage.

So there is no silver bullet here that solves all of our problems. This is and will become reoccurring theme of the fundamental industrial shift we are going through as a country, as a world. There is no single solution in Energy, in Waste, in Water Conservation - in a every area it will take a basket approach to solve problems.

So our dilemma has been this - How do you quantify the narrative of your products? Is a future bag made in China of recycled fabrics better, or worse than a Denier Nylon bag made in the States? Is the fact that production is inconsistent for astounding products better than average products that are reliably produced?

What do consumers value most in their so-called “green” products?

For a while I have been agonizing over this, and in the end the SRI model that I love so much is a good starting point. We are attempting to create a matrix to products that allow the consumer to weight what is important to them. We will have products from overseas, we will have products made in the states. We will have expensive “Boutique” or “Limited Edition” uber green bags. We will have more traditional fabrics with solar on them.

In the end we will leave it all up to the consumer to work out what is most important. Hopefully we will grow to a level that we can dictate our needs to producers and get everything we want in one product. - and really what is more greenie-capitalist America than that?

2 comments.

Older »